In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, we could argue this for a long time. I vote for discarding the
> results and asking GIMPS to warn its participants to never do this again.
> GIMPS should not credit Aaron for the work.
I second this proposal.
Let me explain my reasoning: GIMPS should have a _policy_ of what
are appropriate CPU-cycles, and what are *inappropriate* CPU-cycles.
Then GIMPS should enforce that policy by NOT ACCEPTING the results
of *inappropriate* CPU-cycles.
One parallel might be with the question of sexual harassment in the
workplace. If a company has a _policy_, which it communicates to
all its employees, and which it enforces, then a claim of sexual
harassment against that company would require very strong evidence.
My concern is with "how does GIMPS look to the witch hunters?" If
GIMPS does not have a _policy_ of not accepting *inappropriate*
CPU-cycles, then we risk being tarred with "THOSE people don't care
whose CPU-cycles are taken, or what the consequences are!"
mikus
p.s. In this specific case, I don't have the answers. Apparently
there were people at US West who knew and did not complain.
And there were other people at US West who did not know, and
who *did* complain when they found out. Now, which of these
groups had the ultimate "right of approval" ?
If it comes to trial, that could take months or years. How
should GIMPS act in the meantime? If somebody authorized by
US West tells the press "CPU cycles were stolen from US West",
then I believe GIMPS **should** act on that statement.
