I have received a couple of "complaints" about my "store-and-forward"
service regarding people's comments on the HP3000, on HP management, on
their worries, on their hopes, and so on.
 
The complainers agree on one thing:  What in hell am I doing as a "broker"
or ideas?  The individuals involved, themselves, should just post their
thoughts (however "controversial") directly to the list.
 
I fully agree.  And I and wish such were the case.  After all, I have a
life OUTSIDE of HP3000-L (I have to write a lot of Adager code and I have
to go skiing with the family, among many other things).
 
Nevertheless, I keep thinking of the Korean Airlines airplane (or
aeroplane, if you prefer) that was shot down by the Soviets a few years
ago.  There are many theories, but I remember one in particular.  Having
spent a fair amount of time sitting in the cramped quarters of a plane's
cockpit, I can attest to the reasonableness of this theory.  I know there
are quite a few pilots out there on this list.  So, please share your
opinions regarding my interpretation of things.
 
A plane's cockpit is designed with an "open" mentality in mind.  By "open
mentality" I mean the possibility (even the encouragement) of diversity of
opinions.  Anyone can question anyone else's interpretation of a given set
of facts.  HP3000-L is a prime example of such open mentality.  To avoid
total chaos, some moderation is necessary (even encouraged).  In a plane's
case, there is a hierarchy of command and the captain (theoretically) can
override everything (unless the copilot kills the captain :-)
 
Apparently, in the case of that fateful flight of the Korean Airlines
plane, the captain made some errors while entering crucial navigational
information into the plane's computer (here we go again with the theme of
navigation...  do you remember "Longitude"?)   The second and third
officers detected the error but did not dare tell the captain (the analysis
that I studied, a long time ago, ventured to say that such an attitude is
typical of the "closed" mentality that prevails in totalitarian and/or
dictatorial societies).  As a result, while the captain was sipping Perrier
with some VIPs in First Class -- according to the plane's black-box
recordings of cockpit conversations--, the Soviets shut down the plane
because it was "in their territory".  (I lost track of the "Korean Airlines
catastrophe" thread, so don't flame me if you have a different
interpretation; I'm just using this case as an example; even if it were
fictitional, the whole unfortunate incident would still illustrate my
point; so, please read on.)
 
Bottom line: the three people in charge of that plane defeated the design
purpose of the cockpit environment (based on an open mentality in mind,
where anyone can question anyone else's interpretation of a given set of
facts), with dire consequences for hundreds of passangers.  If we add their
relatives, we can, sadly, say "with dire consequences for THOUSANDS of
people.
 
The freightened subordinates in that plane died in the "package deal"
together with the innocent victims, so no-one could flame them.  The
insolent "inferior" who dared keep independent navigational data for the
English fleet (mentioned in the book "Longitude") was hung on the spot for
mutiny and died, thus also avoiding being flamed (just a few hours before a
couple of thousand sailors died in the resulting shipwreck).
 
With these not-so-inviting precedents, I don't blame certain HP3000 users
for not wanting to vent their frustrations publicly.
 
There are two kinds of HP3000 users:
 
1) Those who either own their business or have the full support of their
managers, even if such HP3000 users are temporarily off the wall; their
managers know that they'll be willing to study all the facts and,
eventually, reach a reasonable conclusion (i.e, people who operate in a
truly open environment).  These people are the ones who post feely to
HP3000-L, both to express their opinions and to ASK questions whose answers
till help them fine-tune their opinions (or even change them totally).
 
2) Those who work under managers that "want one of X" (whatever "X" may be)
at ANY cost, because everyone else has "X" and they must also have "X" so
they don't look foolish in the golf course.  These people know darn well
what will happen to them if they question their "superiors".  These people
are the ones who write to me so I can convey their side of the story.
Their hope, as they have communicated to me time and again, is that by
venting these issues in public, some fresh air will get into their
institutions and the SECRET question that their "superiors" ask themselves
at night ("by the way, what is 'X'?") will be exposed to open discussions.
 
Until such ventilation of the issues takes place, I'm afraid I'll continue
playing the role of idea broker.  But, believe me, I would rather do
something else with my time.  Like writing more Adager code or skiing more
with my family.
 
 
Openly yours,
 
+---------------+
|               |
|            r  |  Alfredo                     [log in to unmask]
|          e    |                           http://www.adager.com
|        g      |  F. Alfredo Rego               Tel 208 726-9100
|      a        |  Manager, Theoretical Group    Fax 208 726-2822
|    d          |  Adager Corporation
|  A            |  Sun Valley, Idaho 83353-3000            U.S.A.
|               |
+---------------+