[H-GEN] Multi-thread downloads

[Russell Stuart]

On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 16:27, Raymond Smith wrote:
> I don't think we have ever had an official position. I guess we
> have made an assumption that people will learn to be respectful
> and so there was no need. I'm not really sure what an official
> position would look like. I don't know how you codify respect
> for community resources.
> 
> What would you expect from such a document?

In my mind there is a bigger issue at stake here.  And that
is how we, as a society, communicate.  To make my point, I will
use an exaggerated example.  How do you fire someone?  Do you
take them aside, tell them they are fired and explain the
reasons, and perhaps escort them off the premises.  Or do you
clear their desk, delete their passwords, change the locks, and
hope they catch on the next morning?

If the University is indeed trying to tell Humbug to limit their
bandwidth usage, then take have taken the second approach.  This 
is a bad thing, IMHO.  Not just because it is "poor form", but 
because it is ineffective.  

Evidently we now hove one group who believe the message has
been clearly delivered by whoever sent it, and another who
doesn't believe it is directed at them.  Looking back at this
thread, I see phrases like Raymond's above: "respect for 
community resources", or in a post from Greg: "No, it's an 
abuse", and in a post from Sarah: "stop being a leecher".  
These are strong words to direct at someone who has chosen 
to  interpret a poorly delivered message differently to the 
way they have.

I happen to agree the prudential thing to do would be to limit
Humbug's bandwidth until we find out more, and so I agree
with the course of action the authors of those barbs want us
to take.  But people, you are attacking the wrong issue!

If Humbug Executive issued a notice like:
  "It appears the University has starting throttling Humbug's
  internet connection at meetings.  We do not know if this is
  deliberate, but for now we ask you to respect those limits
  until we find out more."
then I doubt there would have been a problem.  There would be
no need for name calling, and should someone wontonly break
the rules then I hope there would be no hackles raised by any
punitive action the Executive took.

More importantly, if some change in policy like this happens
again, then repeating the mistake and using a "technical" 
channel to delivery will cause a repeat of these same
problems.  Use a "social channel" to communicate what you
want, such as the message above, will avoid it.

Finally, in order to make my point, I just used the Humbug
Executive in a hypothetical example.  This was probably not a
good idea, but I am too lazy to think of another one.  It is
purely hypothetical because I have no idea what the Executive
position on all this is, so I have no idea whether the notice
would be appropriate or not.  For the record, I am very happy
with how the club is run.