[Ham-Mac] My answer to ARRL webmaster

[Chuck Counselman]

>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:07:29 -0500
>To: "Bloom, Jon, KE3Z" <jbloom@arrl.org>
>From: Chuck Counselman <ccc@space.mit.edu>
>Subject: Re: ARRL web server
>Cc: k1ki@arrl.org, k1twf@arrl.org, n3efn@arrl.org, n3llr@arrl.org, 
>w9gig@arrl.org, k9km@arrl.org, k0qb@arrl.org, n0jph@arrl.org, 
>k5ur@arrl.org, wd4q@arrl.org, wb8bgy@arrl.org, ki4la@arrl.org, 
>n2ff@arrl.org, w2ml@arrl.org, w0ej@arrl.org, k0bj@arrl.org, 
>w6cf@arrl.org, w6rgg@arrl.org, w4pwf@arrl.org, k4nk@arrl.org, 
>w0cp@arrl.org, ws7w@arrl.org, w4rh@arrl.org, w4ru@arrl.org, 
>w6xd@arrl.org, nz6t@arrl.org, n5ok@arrl.org, k5rav@arrl.org, 
>webmaster@arrl.org
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>At 10:44 AM -0500 3/21/02, Bloom, Jon, KE3Z wrote:
>>"Chuck Counselman" <ccc@space.mit.edu> wrote:> "iCab reports 187 
>>warnings and errors on ARRL's main web page....  Thus, we ARRL 
>>members who use non-Microsoft-monopoly software have trouble.... 
>>The ARRL web pp. need to be tested with non-Microsoft-monopoly 
>>software.
>>
>>And they are, as I told you previously. The Microsoft-is-evil 
>>debate simply has no relevance to the issue at hand. The only 
>>question is whether ARRL should devote an amount of development 
>>resources that is unknown but certainly not insignificant to 
>>troubleshooting a problem that occurs sporadically to a small 
>>number of users who are using an obsolete and bug-filled browser 
>>when there are both workarounds and alternatives readily available. 
>>My judgement was and is that it's not a good use of our limited 
>>resources. That judgement is confirmed by the fact that the vast 
>>majority of the few users who have reported the problem have been 
>>satisified to use the workarounds or alternatives when told about 
>>them.
>
>The issue is not whether "Microsoft is evil," but whether the ARRL 
>should be encouraging rather than discouraging use of alternatives 
>to Microsoft-monopoly software.  Yes, of course more testing of the 
>web pages would consume more resources.
>
>That non-Microsoft software is "obsolete and bug-filled" is 
>Microsoft's view, but an equally valid view is that it is 
>Microsoft's software that is obsolete and bug-filled.  The two sides 
>will never agree.  I am asking ARRL not to side with Microsoft.
>
>
>>Finally, this is the only response I'm going to make to messages 
>>that are CC'd to the entire Board. That tactic serves no useful 
>>purpose. If you want to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do 
>>so, and I'm sure Tom Frenaye and Mike Raisbeck will welcome being 
>>CC'd. Tom is perfectly capable of sharing with the Board anything 
>>that requires their attention.
>
>You seem to feel that my addressing the Board directly is 
>inappropriate.  I addressed the Board because (1) you and I 
>disagreed on the technical issue; but (2) there is a policy issue; 
>and (3) policy issues are the business of the Board.
>
>73 de Chuck, W1HIS