[ih] NIC, InterNIC, and Modelling Administration

[Eric Gade]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:


> Again, IFIP was not OSI. They didn't even have a vote in ISO.  They didn't
> even constitute a majority of the X.500 subgroup.
>

This is useful, constructive information that I appreciate.


> But then you weren't there so I am sure you have a better perspective than
> I do.
>

This is not.

In fact, this kind of unnecessary snarkiness and vitriol pops up frequently
on this list, much to its discredit. I'm always up for a lively dialogue,
and, perhaps most importantly, I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong.
You are right -- I do need to tighten up my language. A discourse like this
where we try to establish historical circumstances should involve precisely
these kinds of concessions. Nowhere was I making an attempt to 'tell' anyone
anything. I was simply trying to elucidate some of my current findings.
Knowledge, rather than ego-bruising, was and still is my intention.


> You have third hand view of OSI, I have a first hand view.


This attitude also frequently shows itself on the list, and is almost
entirely useless to the task of history. A third-person view is exactly what
is needed. I'm not doubting anyone's technical expertise, or the prominence
of the role they played in all of this. That is not my concern at all. In
fact, I would very much like to incorporate first hand views into my overall
third hand view. That's what this is all about.

Isn't it?

--
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20110218/c61b656a/attachment.htm>