🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul10.113746.954@dragon.com>, cts@dragon.com writes:
>Again, I'd like to see these other things done, like the DECUServe groups
>made available, either under the VMSnet or the DECUS namespace.  I'm willing
>to work toward either of these;  if some of the technical wealth on DECUServe
>were available, I think this could indeed carry a DECUS hierarchy.  

I expect you are right. And if there were a DECUS namespace I would expect
DECUServe to want those groups gatewayed into it. It would certainly make sense.
And I think it might indeed make the hierarchy successful, but I'm dubious about
whether that would happen if the gateway were one-way.

>In 
>fact, if DECUS were created, gained acceptance, and wide spread availability,
>I'd even be willing to hold another vote on moving VMSnet there.  My whole
>issue all along has been, I like what we have;  let's not disrupt it.

I agree. I'd even vote in favor of migrating into a DECUS hierarchy. Though I
see Jamie's point about that, I don't agree with it. 

>I don't really have a problem with this;  I'd prefer to broaden the charter,
>but since that seems to be "politcally incorrect" :), 

Broadening the charter without changing the name will go over in many parts of
DECUS like the proverbial lead balloon. Among people opposed to such a thing are
Marg Knox, our new president. 

>what the hell, I 
>hereby call for the formal establishment of a DECUS hierarchy, to contain
>both administrivia and technical knowlege sharing.  And that we ask the
>DECUServe folk to work with us, and other areas as it makes sense - perhaps
>the Library folk, too.

Not to be overly facetious, but to whom are you calling? This is the wrong place
to do it. Having already discussed this with Tom (Allebrandi, VMSnet working
group chair), who has also discussed it with Jamie, the working group is not
particularly interested in sponsoring a DECUS.* hierarchy, as it is unarguably
beyond the scope of the working group. I have to agree with that. 

And while I don't think it would create overmuch strife to have the VMS SIG
sponsor such a thing, it would be even better to have another unit of DECUS
sponsor it. The only SIG I can think of that you could make a case for is
networking. Probably some other unit would be better.

DECUServe is properly positioned for this, but I don't know if they want to deal
with 2 disparate cultures. Also, they might look a little silly for wanting to
limit cross-communication among 2 projects both under their control. I don't
know who else might do it. I don't know who DECUServe reports to. I don't know
if there are any discussions going on about doing it. (See why I keep pointing
out that I'm not leadership?) 

I'm not willing to be the person to champion this idea through the multi-layered
organizational charts of DECUS. I might end up in charge of a significant chunk
of DECUS beauracracy, and I don't have the resources to do that. I'd feel a
little disingenous raising a stink to get them to do it given that I'm not
willing to run it. As I've said, I might be willing to manage it, but I'd want
someone above me to do the paperwork and liason to other DECUS units, etc.

>That, or allow content control moderation, or whatever is needed to maintain
>the standards DECUServe wants to keep.

I hope I'm not overly cynical in suggesting that the main thing they want to
maintain is their income.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA