From: Sergey Goldgaber <sergey@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 18:25:03 PST
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Newbies on the List
In-Reply-To: <199403040025.QAA03656@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403031942.F23725-0100000@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Thu, 3 Mar 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:
> The "problem," to the extent theere is one, is that newcomers frequently
> have a bunch of things they really want to say (which is good), but
> lack the context to see how their points fit in with what's possible
> to do, what's already been done, and what is naive (which is bad). And
> after a while, having said what they wanted to say their posts taper
> off.
> 

Flaming is no solution to this "problem".  In fact, this "problem" can, 
with proper guidance, lead to an enriching growing experience (forgive me 
for sounding camp).  Most very "naive" newbies usually get responses that 
are anything but helpfull; unless their queries are phrased in a 
submissive, almost servile tone.  At the very least, a certain 
humility is expected.  This pattern is by no means limited to
this list, or even the whole Internet.

It is the "presumptuous" _and_ "naive" newbies that get flamed the most.
They are the safest targets.  It may be wise to realize that even the
_most_ presumptuous and _most_ naive newbie has potential for enriching 
the group tremendously.

In these cases, flaming usually turns out to be even more naive than
whatever it was the newbie has/hasn't done to deserve the flame.  The
senior, as many have pointed out, should know better.

> Gary sent me some e-mail inquiring about the archive of past
> postings--regrettably, my current understanding is that the toad.com
> archives are not (yet?)  available for browsing and retrieval of past
> posts. Maybe someday.
> 

A great pity.  I suspect that some the contents of the archive may be far 
more educational than even the fabled "Applied Cryptography".  :)

> Chronological age has little to do with being an "old-timer" or a
> "newcomer." 

Thank you for pointing that out.  However, it was not my intention to imply
age differences with the terms "newbie", "elder", or "senior".  Nor was 
it my intention to put anyone on the defensive.

> For example, Sameer Parekh is but a freshman at Berkeley,
> but he is surely and old-timer. Stick around for several months on the
> list, and you'll be an old-timer.
> 
 
> 1. Immediately run out and buy a copy of Bruce Schneier's "Applied
> Cryptography." Do this before doing anything else. It covers so many
> of the areas we deal with that to not have it handy is a waste of your
> and our time. The book is pricey, at $45, but go out and mow some
> lawns or donate some blood if you can't afford it. You can't afford to
> be on this list without it (or some equivalent texts).
> 

For some, actual "live" conversations hold more in the way of being 
educational than any textbook, no matter how well written.  Your 
suggestion is well taken, nonetheless.

> 2. Read the various articles on crypto that are mentioned here fairly
> often (and which will be in the FAQ).
> 3. Speaking of FAQs, some good ones already exist in sci.crypt. The
> "Crypt Cabal" puts out a good one every month or so. Others exist.
> Read them.
> 4. In general, read sci.crypt and talk.politics.crypto. And
> comp.org.eff.talk. And maybe the Clipper and PGP groups.
> 5. Speaking of PGP, some good stuff in the documentation for PGP.
> 6. Finally, hold off on posting for at least a few weeks after joining
> the list. Too many folks "shoot their wad" by hyperenthusiastically
> expounding on a basically flawed idea too early in their history on
> the list. 

It would be ideal if every "newbie" had the time/energy to do all these 
before posting.  It may minimize the chances of "reinventing the wheel".

Luckily, I believe the "cypherpunks" list is a fine way to learn a little 
about cryptography.  Not only by reading, but by participating as well.  
It may not be as effective as actually managing to read and understand 
a 400+ page reference book on cryptography.  Nor would I urge any 
prospective cryptographers to to take this as their only route of study.
But it may be a good (dare I say "fun"?) introduction.

> The problem is that about 700-800 people are on this list--though I
> find this hard to believe...

That is a problem.  There aren't enough!  700 dabbling cypherbabies and 
maybe a dozen serious cypherpunks are less than a handfull.  Perhaps the 
list needs to be subdivided (or renamed to something more boring :)  But 
I don't think we need to worry about there being too many of us.

> and certainly many of them must be
> deleting nearly everything unread. If each "Has anyone ever heard of
> foo?" post was carefully replied to....

I do not seriously expect a constructive, intelligent reply to every 
post.  I was meerly listing it as another ideal.  Constructive replys 
need not be public, BTW.  Especially if the topic(s) has been thoroughly 
covered previously.
 
> I think the response Gary got were actually quite polite, especially
> the ones that stated the fact that his views were likely wrong and
> should not, by silent assent, be taken as the consensus of the list.
> No one called him names or told him to get off the list. Even my
> comments on "stenography" were not all that harsh, in my opinion. 

Yes.  And, names would be comparatively mild to trashing his account 
(something which many readers are very capable if not willing to do).
And that would be mild compared to sending him a mail bomb.  In any case, 
the responses he recieved were mostly less than helpfull.  I certainly 
expected more from certain senior members of this list.

> I don't think any of us want to see newbies "nipped in the bud." But
> we certainly all want to see newbies brought up to speed. 

Flaming them(us) does not usually "get them up to speed".
 
> Many newcomers to crypto have become serious contributors in short
> order. Likewise, many old-timers (like David Sternlight) have never
> reached the point of being a "contributor," so draw your own
> conclusions.

I hope I'll have the time to become a serious contributor (seriously :).
I certainly have the intrest.

> --Tim May


Sergey