NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/org/usenix/864

Text File | 1992-08-20 | 11.7 KB | 225 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!hela.iti.org!scs
From: [e-mail] (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Whither SAGE?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Hela USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hela.iti.org
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:34:49 GMT
Lines: 212


[e-mail] (Pete Cottrell) writes:

[[ A long and thoughtful note about the formation of SAGE.  I've sort
   of been waiting for this kind of complaint to come forward more
   publicly, and want to thank Pete for laying it out so clearly and
   with a lack of personalities. ]]

Let me preface things by saying that I am *not* speaking for SAGE here,
merely giving my own opinion and recollections.  I chaired the meeting
that Pete is referring to and am a member of the Ad-Hoc board.  I'm one
of the board members who came in well after the group was under way
(Pat Wilson is the other).  As such, I've tried to avoid comments on
anything the board did before my presence.  Advance apologies for the
length of my response, but Pete raises many good points and I want to
address them in detail rather than do a half-hearted job and have to
go back again and again to supply details.

Pete mentions that "Some newcomers were surprised (and perhaps
distressed) by several developments."  That's pretty accurate (and
perhaps generous) description.  It's also an accurate description of my
own reaction when I was approached to join the board, so I sure know
where you're coming from.  Taking the points in order:

>The charter of the group was pretty much in place.

Correct, and necessary.  SAGE wanted to get off the ground, but faced
the classic bootstrapping problem.  The ad-hoc board put together some
statements of purpose and a charter as part of the process of
organization.  At some point USENIX and SAGE began talking (I don't
know who approached who) and SAGE became the first STG (Special
Technical Group, the USENIX equivelent of SIGs (sorry, steve)).  As
part of the process of becoming a STG and a live organization, we *had*
to have some sort of charter and demonstrated ability to do something.
On the other hand, we couldn't carve that charter in stone because
there was no real mandate from any membership.  I have viewed and still
view that charter as the jumping off point -- enough to get us out the
door arm in arm with USENIX, but not to ram it down someone's throat.
The final charter, bylaws, etc, all have to wait for the election of
the real board by real members.

One error I think the early board made was proceeding in private (as
opposed to secrecy).  I don't trust my own ability to represent the
reasons the early board chose to work this way.  In retrospect, it was
this lack of public access that probably caused most of the "surprised
(and perhaps distressed)".  More on this later.

Pete mentions there wasn't time to go over everything.  Well, yeah, it
was a fairly intense meeting.  But we addressed every single topic
planned, and I believe all the ones that got raised at the meeting were
dealt with.  If I missed any you have my apologies; but my impression
was that we adjourned because people felt were had done what could be
done at that meeting.

And the items discussed at the meeting were not simply presented -- the
great bulk of them were changed in one way or another.  I think the
charter escaped unchanged, but it's a Mom-and-apple-pie sort of thing
anyway.  Everything else I can recall was modified in a fairly
significant way.

Nonetheless, there is still room for improvement and time for change.
Pete, I'd welcome discussion on any and all topics.  Let's bring 'em
out and talk about 'em.

>-- There was already a plan for the group's board of directors and
>   officers, and the positions were already filled.

Yes, the ad-hoc board was in place.  But it's worth noting two things --
first, that board and is judged acceptable to the USENIX board.  They
looked us over extremely intently (Elizabeth Zwicky represented us
and describes it as being very intense) and we passed muster.  Second,
board dissolves almost in toto when the first election is held.  The
only exception will be Elizabeth, who will be on the new board in
the position "Past President".  It is my understanding that the
USENIX board insisted on her presence, and I support their choice.

Until then we're just holding the coat for the real board and trying to
deal with whatever issue *must* be decided before that election.  Some
topics that fall into that category are
  o  how much does initial membership cost
  o  how are the first nominations and elections done
  o  what is the nature of the corporate relationship between SAGE
     and USENIX
All of these issues had to be addressed quickly and in fact have
been hammered out and been posted to this newsgroup.
There's nothing to stop the new board and USENIX from jointly
re-opening any of them, but I feel pretty good about the work done.
IMHO, the USENIX board does too.

>-- Most of the initial work before the group was announced had been done
>       by members of BayLISA. There had been some attempt to broaden the
>       scope of this group by bringing in someone from the mid-east US and
>       the east coast, but many didn't really feel that 10 or so Bay-area
>       folks and 2 non-Bay area people was adequate national representation.

Agreed.  It is my understanding that Pat Wilson and I were added as
"east coast" members to broaden that board at the specific request of
the USENIX board.  [[I don't think the USENIX board asked for Pat and I
specificly, but that they agreed to us when we were suggested.  I don't
know who suggested us.]]  Still, 2 out of 12 isn't much.  The ad-hoc
board is painfully aware of this, and IMHO the USENIX board is
painfully aware of this.

>       A lot of people at the meeting wondered why the group hadn't been
>announced or even discussed before the conference so that those interested
>could have made the necessary travel arrangements that would have allowed
>them to participate in this first meeting. Input from many more people would
>have been better, a point I think pretty much everyone agreed to. There was
>some explanation as to why the group hadn't been announced before; I don't
>remember the particulars, but it didn't seem to be the strongest argument.
>       To a cynical, skeptical member of the audience who has learned to
>approach things cautiously, the impression could have been that BayLISA was
>taking their group national (and even international) with their members in
>the SAGE leadership positions and signing up members without really giving
>them a chance to participate in the formative process or telling what they
>would get out of it.

Agreed.  IMHO, the most serious mistake that the initial all-bay-lisa
board made was proceeding in private.  No matter the reasons, it gives
the appearance of impropriety.  Pat and I expressed this sentiment most
strongly when we joined.  I think most of the initial board members
would now agree was a mistake.  But there's nothing we can do about it
except say we're sorry and carry on.

>       One thing in particular that bothered me was that some of the people
>leading the meeting (and who were already board members) seemed surprised that
>newcomers would be challenging what had already been set up, or that they
>would be skeptical.

This is a correct assessment of some of those people (tho I hope not
me).  There were members of the board who felt that what they had
discussed and worked over so long was simply the best solution.  Some
of them did not understand that people would not accept the solution
without seeing the pathway and rationale; others did not realize that
the appearance of impropriety would make the rationales alone
unacceptable to many.  The only way to (partially) fix the problem was
with actual public participation, and some members were very reluctant
to have to travel those same arguements for the Nth time.  The only
way to really fix the problem long term is to turn things over to
an elected board with a mandate from the membership as a whole.  I
feel we (the ad-hoc board) demonstrated our willingness to be guided
by the wishes of the membership at the Saturday meeting.  Yes, I ran
the meeting.  But the decisions made there were made by the attendees,
not the ad-hoc board.  If memory serves, almost every decision was
based on actual concensus.  The remaining ones were decided by a large
majority of straw vote.

And even with that, those decisions are still open for change by the
membership and the real elected board.  Nothing is carved in stone.

[[ Questions about what we've been doing since then and why hasn't
   he seen more were addressed by Bryan McDonald in another posting. ]]

>Where did my money
>go and what does my membership gain me? What can I contribute (besides cash)?
>I still have a lot of unanswered questions.

Your money went (every penny) to the USENIX Association.  They will use
it to fund the elections, legal costs, "office costs" that USENIX incurs
on our behalf, and meeting space at San Antonio and Long Beach.  The ad-hoc
board has not and will get get a penny.  We do it all out of our own pockets
or the pockets of our employers.  It is our feeling that the same should
apply to the elected board.  [[Potential board members take note -- you
should expect to spend a lot of time and $$$ attending meetings, in
teleconferences, etc, etc.  At this point it is simply not feasible for
your expenses to be convered by SAGE.]]

What you get for your money is

  o  additional pages in ';login:' devoted to system administration issues.
     Bryan McDonald (ad-hoc SAGE editor) and Rob Kolstad (;login editor)
     are working closely together on this material.  At the moment this
     benefits every USENIX member but is sponsored by SAGE; in the future
     there may be a separate SAGE-only publication -- but that's a decision
     for the elected board

  o  the right to nominate and vote for the real board

  o  the knowledge that you're supporting a useful activity (yeah, yeah,
     than and a buck will get you a cup of coffee  ;-) )

>       If this has all been discussed before, then I apologize and perhaps
>someone can bring me up to speed. If I just fell through the cracks,
>then I'd appreciate it if SAGE would immediately fill in some details and
>take steps to see that I receive the benefits of my membership. If, on the
>other hand, SAGE hasn't really geared up or done anything yet, then I think
>we should start discussing this and start things moving. What's the scoop?

Much (most, I think) of this has been published here, but was in the
form of fairly boring press releases, etc.  Perhaps we should have been
more agressive in reposting, but we didn't want to bore people.  A
couple of folks verbally suggested comp.org.usenix.sage, but the
general reaction was "too soon."  Perhaps we should revisit that topic.

The bulk of current SAGE activities are the gathering and organizing of
possible long-term SAGE work.  This is happening largely thru thru the
mailing lists, which are open to anyone.  Bryan mentioned the lists
briefly; he will be doing a more detailed reposting of what lists
exist, their topics, and how to join.  The charter of those lists is to
present organized ideas to the elected board and membership as a
whole.  The members of those lists, like the ad-hoc board, are aware
that they don't have any granted legitimacy from the membership.  But
they're doing good work, and I hope you'll join in.

Again, many thanks for raising the issues in such a productive manner.

Steve
--
"If life were fair, the acquisition of a large bosom or a massive inheritance
 would have no bearing on your ability to attract the opposite sex, and Dan
 Quayle would be making a living asking runny-nosed children, `Do you want
 fries with that?'"     -- John Cleese, "Corporate Computing" magazine