Standards, was Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Resignation

[Tony Langdon]

> 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.

I'm glad you did, it's quite interesting. :-)
> 
> > 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.

We can at least try and provide a good solid foundation for others or
ourselves at a later date to build upon the network. 
> 
> > 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.  ;)

LOL.  I see two possible approaches here:

1.  We make it as easy as possible for people to enter.

	Pros:  Increases the potential number of participating nnodes and
broadens the appeal of the network.
	Cons:  Lowers the "average" level of technical expertise.
Encourages "passengers" who are here just for the ride (and free philes!).

2.  We make it a technical, experimental hobby.
	
	Pros:  Encourages participants to further their technical skills.
Also encourages people to help each other out.
	Cons:  May limit access.  Perceptions of "elitism" - the techno nerd
"haves" and "have nots".

> 
> > 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).

Well, no one person has all the answers, and IMHO, sharing expertise is a
part of the spirit of the network.  If I know how to get a 2.4 GHz dish up,
and you can tell me how to get an Entrasys card working under Linux (for
example), we can both learn something out of the exercise.  And those people
who are a little less technical, but have good social skills
(persuasiveness, leadership, etc), are those who might just be able to get
us good hardware deals, or an AP on every council owned property.  If that's
not contributing, I don't know what is (and for doers like that, I don't
mind doing their bit of setup work that they may struggle with).

> 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).

Hmm, winter's coming, we might need a flame or two to keep warm. ;-)

> 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...

Well, I have an interest in a couple of areas.  The most obvious is the the
technical challenge of making the thing work in the first place, but
underneath that is something similar to your motivations - a desire to
communicate.  That's been with me ever since I discovered Dad's 2 way radio
in his work car as a kid, then built my own (fleapower) broadcast AM and FM
transmitters, through to walkie talkies, CB, ham radio and the Internet.
Wireless is yet another extension of that. :-)

> 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).

Agreed, the more we work together, the better the outcome will be.

> 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).

I might give it some thought.  I think the answer lies somewhere between a
traditional committee run group and the ideal of an unstructured
organisation where working groups come and go as necessary.  However, I'm
open to ideas.
> 
> 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).

I expected a bit of friction, that's actually natural for groups of people
as they come together.  I'm sure it will largely work itself out and we'll
move forward in a relatively smooth fashion.

> 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.

That's as far as I want to go too, but I feel it will eventually become a
necessary evil, to give outside organisations a stable point of contact, and
to possibly create a legal entity if one is required (if and only if! ;) ).

> 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).

Well said.  What people get out of this thing is what we put in.  If they're
looking for scapegoats, they're in the wrong game.  If they want to put in
and build a good network, well, that'll be good. :)

This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality
or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this
correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and
notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this
correspondence if you are not the intended recipient.

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.


--
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