Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446643

Re: OT: in favour of gradualism

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-02-06 17:59, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>>> In virtually all of those scenarios, it was rare to find folks
>>>>>>> EAGER to spend THEIR TIME pursuing the corporate goal.  The few
>>>>>>> cases I was able to single out were typically very
>>>>>>> bright/inquisitive
>>>>>>> folks who were completely engaged in the CHALLENGE before them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A very nice countermeasure to such passive behavior is also a good
>>>>>> old
>>>>>> American
>>>>>> one: Stock options. I never had any job without those. At my last
>>>>>> employer
>>>>>> before starting self-employed every employee had them, plus a stock
>>>>>> purchase
>>>>>> program. IOW we were de facto partly employee-owned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've worked at places where annual bonuses exceeded your base pay.
>>>>> Money is not a motivator.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT? I assume you are kidding. Money is the biggest motivator for
>>>> most people.
>>>> If they work their tails off and this results in them being able to
>>>> afford a
>>>> Corvette or a fancy vacation they will be happy like fish in the
>>>> water. So will
>>>> be their spouses and that's what really matters. Well, maybe not so
>>>> much in the
>>>> case of the Corvette or the 49ers season tickets :-)
>>>
>>> <https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv>
>>>
>>> "These results have important implications for management: if we want
>>> an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we
>>> want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In
>>> a nutshell: money does not buy engagement."
>>>
>>> A good manager/employr wants to select employees that are intrinsically
>>> motivated.  A *deficiency* in pay can demotivate far more than a surplus
>>> can motivate.
>>>
>>> [I'll not waste time arguing the point.  There's been a LOT of research
>>> on the subject.  Check it out...]
>>
>> Quote from your link "and that financial rewards can ultimately
>> depress or
>> "crowd out" intrinsic goals"
>>
>> ROFL! Do you seriously believe this stuff?
>
> Yes!  I've seen money lead to WORSE corporate performance as folks
> became LESS cooperative -- each trying to maximize their share of
> the annual-bonus-pie!
>

You mean management by objectives or MBO? That hardly ever works well. 
One has to be smarter in deciding on remuneration. Year-plans usually 
work just as badly as five-year plans in communist countries do.


> In one case, I *volunteered* what I considered to be a great idea to
> a fellow employee and he rejected it outright -- prefering his
> far inferior implementation lest he have to explain *me* as the
> source for the better idea!
>

That is fiefdom behavior or NIH behavior. We were talking about rewards 
after someone did a stellar job. To a good manager it does not matter 
how that employee got there, all that matters is that he got there.


>>> If I paid you your going rate -- plus 50% -- and told you I wanted
>>> you to dig ditches for 10 hours a day, would you do it?
>>
>> Yes, Sir! It's very good excercise and I'd even get paid for it.
>
> Ready to sign up for a 20 year hitch?  Or, will you just milk it
> for short term gains and leave the ditch-digger-corp high and dry
> when you've sated your immediate goals?
>

As long as my body is able to do it :-)

No kidding, if I were young again I wouldn't study engineering but keep 
that as a hobby and studied for brewmaster instead. It's a fun job and 
those who are good at it make a ton of money.

Making my hobby a profession had the side effect that I don't want to 
deal with electronics for hobby anymore. For example, right now I have 
to replace a poorly design temperature controller in a wine fridge in 
order to make it a good fermentation cooler/heater. Since it's still 
winter that has time and I push that design away every day. That 
wouldn't have happened when I was young.


>>>                                                    ... Just think
>>> of how handsomely you are being rewarded for a MENIAL TASK!  You'd be
>>> a fool NOT to want to work *20* hours a day, right?
>>
>> Right. Except I want time to do volunteering which offers zero income
>> and not
>> even mileage reimbursement, just the way I want it to be.
>
> Ah, but you can make a cash donation to the organization and they can
> HIRE someone at a much lower rate to do the things that YOU would have
> done!
>

Stephen Ministry and things like that? They can definitely not. That 
requires a lot of training (also on your own dime). Similar with 
visiting Alzheimer's places. Most people cannot take it emotionally and 
they have nightmares later. Some try it for a while, even a year or so, 
and then quit. 20 years ago I would not have imagined that I could do it.


>>>>> Having lived with the turmoils of small companies not being able to
>>>>> meet payroll, buy needed equipment, get VC funding, etc. I opted for a
>>>>> "large, well established firm".  As I'd not, prior to that,
>>>>> encountered
>>>>> the 9-to-5 mentality, I wasn't prepared for it.  I naively thought
>>>>> ALL engineers were driven by the challenges they were tackling and
>>>>> it didn't occur to me that some/many would just see it as a job:
>>>>>      "The prototype will STILL be here Monday morning.  No need to
>>>>>      keep working on it, tonight..."
>>>>
>>>> I could have warned you :-)
>>>
>>> I started my (9-to-5) career amid lots of small startups.  Delightful
>>> challenges, extremely bright people -- but, often, tenuous financial
>>> situations.  There's a balance between "challenge" and "security".
>>>
>>> As my career progressed, security became less important (nest egg,
>>> etc) so challenge regains its appeal.  I have no hesitation turning down
>>> work that I'm *expert* at out of sheer anticipated boredom:  been there,
>>> done that, T-shirt...
>>>
>>> OTOH, regularly take on interesting challenges /pro bono/ simply for
>>> the OPPORTUNITY to try something new and exciting!  To LEARN something.
>>
>> I do mentoring at times plus ministry work. All on a zero-Dollar
>> basis. I am a
>> believer in giving back to society but that's got nothing to do with
>> regular work.
>>
>> Just this morning I helped an engineer get on his feet, pro bono
>> because he was
>> struggling with high voltage stuff. He had never done it before.
>
> I design 6-figure "systems" that folks can't afford to have custom designed
> for their needs.  This usually involves a fair bit of time trying to
> ascertain their needs, how they currently approach the problem(s) and
> possible BETTER ways to get to the desired end-state.
>
> Once I've finished observing, I can go off and put together the hardware
> (from
> donor sources) and write the software to make it all work.
>
> They get a (labor saving) system.  I get exposure to a new application
> domain
> and the technology that *I* have selected to address it.
>
> (and, of course, I own the IP involved)
>

Good for you. I wouldn't have the time for that because I spend a lot of 
my free time on non-tech volunteering.


>>>>>> With me, if they want more they also pay more :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I strictly work by time and materials, never fixed bid. Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started my business with that approach -- on the advice of others.
>>>>> Then, realized it let clients drag projects out far longer than *I*
>>>>> was interested (I'm not eager to dig ditches regardless of the pay!)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I take the exact opposite approach:  fixed cost for everything.
>>>>> *But*, that means the project's extents are completely defined
>>>>> before hand!  If *you* don't know what you want (and expect me to
>>>>> design N different concepts so you can see WHY you don't like
>>>>> them), then I surely don't want to be your entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> That is next to impossible for 70% of my projects. They are usually
>>>> cutting
>>>> edge stuff. New concepts where it is impossible to see whether an idea
>>>> might
>>>> work and how much it'll take to make a go of it. The other 30% or so of
>>>> projects are of the kind "Well, we blew EMC, big time, no idea why,
>>>> can you fix
>>>> that?".
>>>
>>> Most of my work is proof of concept.  So, largely uncharted waters.
>>> OTOH, I don't have to "dot the i's and cross the t's" for a
>>> manufacturable
>>> product.
>>
>> Most of us do. My results usually have to be completely production-ready
>> because as you mentioned before, sometimes I am also the whole EE
>> department
>> for a client. Maybe except for software.
>
> I get a design concept to a point where they can chase down VC funding.
> Or, where they can hire a grunt to iron out the details of an
> implementation.
>

Not possible in my case. Hardly any analog grunts available. At least 
not many good ones.


> This is very cost-effective for them because they don't pay my rates to
> do mundane things (find the best source for a particular component;
> tweek the colors on the screen; convert the specification into a user
> manual;
> etc.) AND don't have to commit to a full project if, for example, the
> aspects that I'm developing don't pan out.  Or, if a mechanism proves
> to costly to build; etc.
>
> For me, I am relieved of the cruft part of the job.  And, end up with less
> "invested" (emotionally) if the entire project folds due to some aspect
> that can't be met (e.g., funding).
>
> The ticklish part is when the client wants you to "train" their recent
> hire.
> "Sorry, YOU are responsible for hiring capable employees.  My documentation
> speaks for my design so he shouldn't need anything beyond that!"
>
> (No, I'm NOT really interested in the problems he encounters getting from
> concept to production -- I've got my own NEW challenges to address!)
>
> I frequently hear comments like:
>     "It took me a while to figure out HOW YOU DO THINGS but, once I did,
>     everything was obvious!"
> Note he's commenting on my PROCESS, not my SOLUTION!
>

I work differently. My clients receive a complete module spec with every 
project, whether they want it or not, in part because I am also writing 
this design-concurrently for myself. That details everything down to 
where to 2nd source and all. They can take that and build product. Of 
course, I do outsource some aspects such as layout because I'd be too 
expensive for that. However, layout guidelines for the more iffy stuff 
are in the module spec.


>>> So, its relatively easy to identify bite-sized chunks that are essential
>>> to determining the viability of the idea WITHOUT having to nail down
>>> all the operational and manufacturing details.  (let someone else worry
>>> about that; I want to explore the novelty aspects!)
>>
>> Many projects require both. Like when you want to press some parts
>> into service
>> that were not meant to this purpose. I have to go from white-sheet
>> idea all the
>> way to 10 field-tested prototypes.
>
> I build *a* prototype (sometimes 3 if I can get three sets of boards at
> one shot AND there aren't three "mechanisms" needed to make them all
> operational) and use it to illustrate/prove the concept.  Then, the
> client can go off and play "what if" games on his own time without
> me having to sit idling (I move on to some other project/client).
>

I am always concurrently on some other project, switching back and forth 
as needed. But I do like to see things through all the way to a smooth 
production phase.


>>>>> This criteria also tends to filter out the clients that are
>>>>> "insecure";
>>>>> that want someone to hold their hands while they try to make up their
>>>>> minds.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, lets clients nibble at a problem instead of signing a blank check
>>>>> and wondering where it will lead:
>>>>>      "We've spent $X and have nothing to show for it!"
>>>>>      "Sure you do!  All of those approaches that you spent money
>>>>> reifying
>>>>>      and then ruled out!  Had you done that on paper -- or in your own
>>>>>      mind -- then you wouldn't have spent the $X and wasted all of
>>>>> those
>>>>>      hours of MY LIFE!"
>>>>
>>>> Seems you and I have completely opposite business philosophies. I like
>>>> that
>>>> sizzle of the unknown. So do my clients.
>>>
>>> I view the hours of my life as a scarce resource.  I jealously guard
>>> how they
>>> are "spent".  I can always get more money but can't always get more
>>> *time*!
>>
>> Stay fit, that buys you more time. I strictly adhere to certain physical
>> activities. Whack my own firewood, at least 100 miles on a bike each
>> week. A
>> real one, not some stationary deal. Lots of walking. Absolutely
>> positively no
>> fast food, zero. All home-cooked. Even the beer we drink is home-made.
>
> No beer/alcohol.  No sweets (excepting ice cream, occasionally).  Decaf
> tea.  No soda.  Very little red meat (SWMBO doesn't like it).  No drugs
> (OTC/Rx/recreational).  No tobacco.  28miles/7 hours walking each week
> plus 2 hours yard work (installing a subterranean 2000G cistern without
> benefit of a backhoe).
>

Good! Though 28mi of walking alone isn't enough and yard work is less 
exercising than one might think.


> My biggest (controllable) risk-factor is regularity of eating (I tend
> to forget to eat) and piss-poor sleep-wake cycle (but, there is ALWAYS
> something more interesting to do than SLEEP!  :< )
>

Regular sleep cycles are very important but I know a lot of engineers 
who have issues with that. Not healthy. I drop into deep sleep like a 
log latest at 11pm and then get up at 6:30am. Very regularly. I had to 
shift my mornings after California suffered a (to me predictable) 
high-tech exodus to places like Texas which is 2h ahead of us.


>>> So, I am loathe to commit to open-ended projects.  Esp if that is a
>>> result
>>> of someone not thinking about their ultimate goals.  "Call me when you
>>> have a good idea of where you ant to go with this..."
>>
>> Most of mine are fairly open-ended. It's not so much lack of foresight
>> but the
>> fact that nobdoy has ever done it before. So you got to test, test,
>> redesign,
>> test again et cetera.
>
> I make the first (or second) pass at a design (sometimes someone has
> hacked up the barest "concept" or patent proof before I see it) and
> then leave others to fill in the detail.  I make it pretty clear, up front,
> that I'm not here for the long haul.  So, nailing down ALL of the tasks
> for which I will be responsible lets clients plan on when I'll be
> making my exit.  And, if smart, arranging for some overlap with my
> successor(s).
>

Ok, very different philosophy than mine. My clients are mostly like 
dentist clients. They want me to make something new or fix something and 
see to it that they can walk out the door free of pain.


>>> My FinL used to claim that it was just as easy to keep the top half
>>> of the
>>> (gas) tank full as the bottom -- a commentary on folks who always
>>> seem to
>>> be running out of gas yet never filling up.
>
> Father-in-Law
>
>> Not sure what a FinL is but I have never run out of gas.
>
> Nor I.  OTOH, his kids seemed to like to leave HIM with an empty tank
> (of course, you can understand why!  :> )
>

I'd have a pep talk with the kids and if it repeats ... no car keys.


>>>>> If the docotr makes a best-guess assessment that the patient will
>>>>> likely
>>>>> die from X when he is 78 years old and his nominal life expectancy is
>>>>> 75,
>>>>> then is it acceptable to NOT treat X?
>>>>
>>>> It can be. This is a different topic though and something I witnessed
>>>> recently.
>>>> Often one has to weigh between the risk of dying from the anesthesia
>>>> against
>>>> that from the disease itself.
>>>
>>> Yup.  OTOH, if *you* die as a result of not having a procedure, you
>>> might
>>> have a different opinion as to the relative risks involved!  :>
>>
>> This is why bit is important that someone knows your wishes in case
>> you can't
>> decide for yourself anymore.
>
> What's MORE important is that you have organizations and providers who
> will HONOR your wishes -- and not resort to "religious objections" to
> justify
> imposing THEIR wishes on you and your heirs!
>

As a practicing Lutheran I have no problem with that :-)


>>>>> Why?  A client can opt to maximize their profit at the expense of
>>>>> their
>>>>> reputation (People's Electronic Device Manufacturer #24566).  To do
>>>>> so,
>>>>> model "in warranty" replacements (and their costs) vs. the cost to
>>>>> provide a QUALITY product that will continue to operate far beyond the
>>>>> warranty period.
>>>>
>>>> I do not want to be associated in any way with such shady business
>>>> behavior.
>>>> Therefore, if I know about it I would decline. My reputation is not
>>>> negotiable.
>>>
>>> How do you know that is their intent?
>>
>> It usually becomes rather obvious in very early discussions.
>
> I designed a product with really tight cost pressures -- only to
> later "discover" that the "price" was 20X my DM+DL *and* they
> were GIVEN AWAY ("toilet paper dispensers").  Sure, there is
> some rationale in keeping the cost low esp if you are using
> them as loss-leaders.  But, how much calendar time could have been
> salvaged had they simply made this known in the beginning and
> trusted us "not to be sloppy" with our costs?
>

With me this is always up to the client, their decision. They pay my 
time and materials and what they do with the results is their turf.


>>>>> How many people bought ANOTHER DTV decoder because they were so
>>>>> satisfied
>>>>> with the first one they purchased?  How many people had BOTH of the
>>>>> DTV
>>>>> converters that they purchased (subsidized) *fail* in short order?
>>>>> How many of the DTV manufacturers are still making DTV converters and
>>>>> expecting to tap into that market?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody needs a DTV decoder, it's built into the TV.
>>>
>>> Its built into *new* TV's!  We don't watch broadcast TV so see no
>>> need to
>>> upgrade our "oversized DVD monitor".  We keep a DTV decoder for the few
>>> times we want to watch the local news (vs. check online).  Why buy a new
>>> TV just to get a "free DTV decoder" -- esp when the new TV doesn't
>>> have an
>>> interactive program guide?
>>
>> TV has become fairly useless ever since they switched to digital (and I
>> predicted that). It pixelates out, loses audio a lot. Often we just
>> give up and
>> now we have an Android box to watch stuff via Internet. Like an old
>> German
>> movie from 1953 yesterday that you can't even rent anywhere anymore.
>
> We've never been big "TV consumers".  Given the choice between sleep
> and TV, sleep would win -- and, you can see (above) that *it* usually
> gets short-changed.
>
> OTOH, I "watch" a movie (DVD) nearly every night while working.
> (taking 2 hours out of my day to actually sit in front of the TV
> would be a colossal waste!)
>

I can't have TV on while concentrating on a design and there is no TV in 
my office. The only distraction I afford myself is music while 
hand-checking a netlist or when solding stuff.


>>>>>>> realistically, you KNOW that this will result in the $200 product
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> shit-canned in 2-3 years (of normal use).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why I would not design it. They'd have to find someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 9-to-5 engineer?  Or, someone who is REALLY CLEVER at figuring out
>>>>> how to
>>>>> design RIGHT to the margins??  :>
>>>>
>>>> That is not clever, that is IMO evil.
>>>
>>> But, they were able to accurately target their stated reliability goal!
>>> I'd be hard pressed to even know how to BEGIN to cut things that close!
>>> Surely, a great deal of skill and experience involved...
>>
>> That's almost the same as saying that Billy the Kid was a great man
>> because of
>> his super marksmanship. Never mind all the folks he killed and all the
>> women he
>> made widows.
>
> The same guy who can get a product to fail just outside its warranty
> window is probably also the best guy to get a product to last forever!
>

The fact that he stooped down to the level of designing with "planned 
obsolescence" makes me lose respect for the guy.


> The gun isn't the villain...


Never was. It's the people behind its handle.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800
  Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 04:21 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 04:57 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-03 11:38 -0600
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:21 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 10:42 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 08:15 -0800
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 11:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:31 -0500
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-04 18:04 -0600
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:33 -0500
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 05:00 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:03 -0800
    Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0700
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:10 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:18 -0800
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:34 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:04 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 12:07 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 14:15 -0700
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 14:02 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:19 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:36 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:46 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-04 14:56 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:17 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:55 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:26 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:44 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:42 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:56 -0500
              Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 08:14 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500
                Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500
      Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800
        Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700
          Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800
            Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700

csiph-web