Standards, was Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Resignation

[Adrian Close]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, David Saab wrote:

Apologies, David, if you think it inappropriate for me to CC this reply
back to the list.  I like to keep this discussion out in the open.

> Thanks for your input Adrian, and I agree that open source and anarchic
> model of best method can and does work, however, how would it facilitate
> further growth of the community network?

By providing a solid, reliable and extensible network as a basis for
people to do whatever they can dream up (cf. the Internet at large).

We can't possibly know everything people are ever going to want to do,
but we _can_ plan for it.  Get the layering right and this can work
extremely well.

> Are you of the opinion that to use it everybody has to become
> essentially a linux guru, (or at least linux & wireless competent)?

Absolutely not.  They should be OpenBSD gurus instead.  ;)

> Its my thought we are perpetuating a community network that will allow
> the community at large access to this technology, and not just the
> technical elitist few. In case you don't realise, the average technical
> ability here in this group far outstrips the average Joe in the street.

I am very aware of this fact.  Even within the group of interested people,
the technical ability is widely varied.  This is as it should be.  Some
pepople are good at network stuff, others RF stuff.  Some are good at what
you might call social engineering.  Some people can burn sausages (like
me, at the first two BBQs where no-one else seemed interested in cooking,
only eating, which is an interesting comment on the group's mentality).

We need everybody.  Yes, even the foot-in-mouth flamers busy digging
themselves great big holes with backhoes (because we can convert them into
useful team members with a little TLC).

Believe it or not, the fundamental reason I'm even interested in this
stuff in the first place is a basic desire to help people communicate.

The technical elite can have a lot of fun building the network and using
it for way-out and wonderful things.  The others can benefit from the
fruits of such labour as we work out what we can actually do with the
technology.  There are some pretty far-reaching social implications in the
idea of a city-spanning, free, community wireless network...

> community network. The more nodes we have, the better position we are
> in.

I couldn't agree more.  That's why I'm interested in the group not
fragmenting into People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front bickering
and trying to promote serious thinking among group members about what we
want to do and how we might go about it (while learning from past mistakes
of others and not repeating experiments for which the results are already
known).

> I agree that this should not be a corporate structure. That would simply
> be silly and inappropriate. However the structure that is being proposed
> will simply allow us to do what we want more effectively.

I have to say I haven't seen a single cogent proposal for a group
structure as yet.  Do you have one?  My thoughts, as you will have seen,
are to follow the IETF model (but not to end up where they are now).

Actually, apart from the bitching and mud-slinging, I have to say I'm
pretty happy with the way we are at the moment.  What we need is for
people to build network.  Administrivia (minimal) can sort themselves out
(because people will jump in and do stuff to fill a need that they
perceive).

> As I understand it, we will be a group of people that have a common
> interest and goal. (My favourite structures around that theory are
> function based teams, that report back to the group.) This does not mean

I think we agree on this.  No formality is required here.

> that we will have a group of people that simply arbitrarily choosing
> which way we go, but a representative selection of people that we choose
> (by voting) and nominate to represent our views and champion our cause.

I'm pretty convinced that people can vote with their networks and their
feet.  If someone comes up with a good idea, people will implement it.  If
it sucks, they won't.  Enough motivated people with a common goal
will produce a network that works.  Easy.

Now, the champions of the cause can elect themselves and go forth into the
world, using the mailing list as a sounding board and message post to make
sure they're on the right track and are telling people what they're up to.

If people _really_ want some consensus-elected general spokesbody that
other organisations _might_ feel more comfortable talking with, I can
definitely handle that concept.  But I think that's about as far as we
want to go in the formal organisation stakes.

Of course if we want to do the carrier licence thing or get a government
grant then we absolutely need the formal structure to satisfy legislative
requirements.  But until that point I'm getting a definite feeling that
people are looking for a presidential scapegoat whose fault it can be when
things go wrong (and I don't think we need that - people should be mature
enough to look out for themselves and others to further our common goals
and shoulder responsibility for their own actions).

Adrian Close			email:	adrian at close.wattle.id.au
1 Old Gippsland Rd.		web:	http://www.close.wattle.id.au/~adrian
Lilydale, VIC, 3140, Australia	mobile:	+61 412 385 201



--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless