OK. I have been criticized for my suggestions. Could I please point
out, with respect, that I was making suggestions for comment - not
trying to steer the outcome!
> > 1. A new rule that no more than a fixed maximum number of machines be
> > allowed for each user identity in Primenet. I suggest about 50 for
> > the limit.
On reflection I feel 50 is low. Also I see no realistic way of
policing. After all, we want the project to be FUN!
However, I think we should suggest, fairly firmly, in the
documentation that large numbers of participating machines *can*
cause problems, for which we (as the project) are unable to take
responsibility - therefore users should restrict their enthusiasm &
build up numbers reasonably slowly, watching for any problems
which might be developing & solving them before increasing further.
> > 2. Blosser's user account to be reset to zero results & CPU years.
> > All Blosser's previously-submitted results to be retained,
> > but reassigned to a new user "anonymous" who will not appear in
> > ranking lists.
>
> I don't think that is fair at all. We are not to judge Blosser. He
> did the work and should get the credit for it. If someone claims that
> Blosser used their computers without permission, then that is a case
> between Blosser and them.
Hey, guys, I'm really very, very sorry. I should have made it
absolutely clear that the penalty should be imposed only if a
conviction results. Until then, so far as I'm concerned, Blosser is
as innocent as a new-born lamb, and no action should even be
contemplated. My suggestion was made in response to a message about
the ethics of retaining results which were obtained in dubious
circumstances ... personally I have no doubts about that.
> During this summer 25 of the SGI Indys I'm using for double-checking got
> upgraded from IRIX 5.3 to IRIX 6.2. This broke the script I use to stop
> the porgram at opening hours for the computer room, when students are
> using the maschines. The programs ran for two whole days at times of
> the day when I wasn't allowed to run the program on these workstations.
> Should I get discredited for those two days, or where do you want to set
> the limit?
(a) Did you do the upgrade? If so, you should have checked the script
was still working... If not, did the person doing the upgrade warn
you? If not, I don't see how you could possibly be responsible.
(b) If your employer takes action against you for what seems to me to
be a very minor incident, then, maybe, yes, you should be
discredited for those two days. However, if you hadn't said anything,
I doubt anyone would have noticed...
Regards
Brian Beesley
