Bob fully embraced the deeply romantic "ARPA Dream" of personal computing and pervasive networking. His true genius was in being able to "lead by getting others to lead and cooperate" via total commitment, enormous confidence in his highly selected researchers expressed in all directions, impish humor, and tenacious protection of the research.
He was certainly the greatest "research manager" in his field, and because of this had the largest influence in a time of the greatest funding for computing research. It is impossible to overpraise his impact and to describe just how he used his considerable personality to catalyze actions.
The key idea was to have a great vision yet not try to drive it from the funders on down, but instead "fund people not projects" by getting the best scientists in the world to "find the problems to solve" that they thought would help realize the vision.
An important part of how this funding was carried out was not just to find the best scientists, but to create them. Many of the most important researchers at Xerox PARC were young researchers in ARPA funded projects. Bob was one of the creators of this process and carried it out at ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC.
He was one of those unique people who was a central factor in a deep revolution of ideas.
"An important part of how this funding was carried out was not just to find the best scientists, but to create them."
Is anyone doing this today?
Bell Labs had this practice in the early 20th century, ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC it seems in the latter thanks to Bob.
"Create/develop the best" isn't a mentality or practice that I see in the tech world today. Unfortunately it's an idea and practice that also seems lost in my own field of education.
Maybe at Microsoft they could be said to be in that league in the early 21st century, but that seems to be decaying away now. Google has their X lab or whatever the latest name for it is - that seems to be pointed toward solving a lot of world problems (automated driving, internet access for all). It's sad and amazing to think how the us govt funded a lot of fundamental science and how they has been reduced over time - compare the world then to today where the head of the US House science committee chairman thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.
The Cold War and The Space Race were two causes of lots of government investment in R&D. We have neither today which is a cause of less funding for this type of research. Also, of course wars -- WW II saw development of Radar, nuclear technology, ...
Lots of integrated circuit funding for satellites, ICBM missile systems, etc.
Because of circumstances, Israel has been the leader in drone technology and a leader in water desalinization and drip irrigation and water reuse. But Israel is a small country the size and population the size of New Jersey. Only so much a country of 8 million can do.
If we had the mindset of Israel throughout the US imagine the amount of good R&D that would come out of it.
This embodies to me the qualitative difference between a manager and a leader. Or put another way, he's a 10X manager. Highly unfortunate that I cannot find any papers (much less books) authored by him that discuss how he learned and what he uses to continue to learn leadership. Would give an eyetooth to get his perspective on how he came up with and introduced the Dealer concept, or his equivalent of essays on management like Brooks' Mythical Man-Month.
"My bias was always to build decentralization into the net. That way it would be hard for one group to gain control. I didn’t trust large central organizations. It was just in my nature to distrust them." -- Bob Taylor
Yep. In almost any other alternate universe, we ended up with an oligarchy of private digital information services, each acting as gatekeepers to its own exclusive internet. It's hard to fathom the innovation that would have been prevented by the much higher barriers to entry in such a world, and just how much intellectually richer we are from Taylor's radical vision winning out.
Powerful statement from one who, while part of a giant centralized organization initiated the most important decentralized system we will likely ever know.
My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parties are able to state each other's position to the other's satisfaction. One of his tricks as a manager was to help the parties get to that state.
This is either from Rheingold's Tools for Thought or Doug Smith's book.
In the 1970s at Xerox PARC, regularly scheduled arguments were routine. The company that gave birth to the personal computer staged formal discussions designed to train their people on how to fight properly over ideas and not egos. PARC held weekly meetings they called "Dealer" (from a popular book of the time titled Beat the Dealer). Before each meeting, one person, known as "the dealer," was selected as the speaker. The speaker would present his idea and then try to defend it against a room of engineers and scientists determined to prove him wrong. Such debates helped improve products under development and sometimes resulted in wholly new ideas for future pursuit. The facilitators of the Dealer meetings were careful to make sure that only intellectual criticism of the merit of an idea received attention and consideration. Those in the audience or at the podium were never allowed to personally criticize their colleagues or bring their colleagues' character or personality into play. Bob Taylor, a former manager at PARC, said of their meetings, "If someone tried to push their personality rather than their argument, they'd find that it wouldn't work." Inside these debates, Taylor taught his people the difference between what he called Class 1 disagreements, in which neither party understood the other party's true position, and Class 2 disagreements, in which each side could articulate the other's stance. Class 1 disagreements were always discouraged, but Class 2 disagreements were allowed, as they often resulted in a higher quality of ideas. Taylor's model removed the personal friction from debates and taught individuals to use conflict as a means to find common, often higher, ground.
This is one of those stories that has distorted over time. "Dealer" was a weekly meeting for many purposes, the main one was to provide a vehicle for coordination, planning, communication without having to set up a management structure for brilliant researchers who had some "lone wolves" tendencies.
Part of these meetings were presentations by PARC researchers. However, it was not a gantlet to be run, and it was not to train people to argue in a constructive way (most of the computer researchers at PARC were from ARPA community research centers, and learning how to argue reasonably was already part of that culture).
Visitors from Xerox frequently were horrified by the level of argument and the idea that no personal attacks were allowed had to be explained, along with the idea that the aim was not to win an argument but to illuminate. Almost never did the participants have to be reminded about "Class 1" and "Class 2", etc. The audience was -not- determined to prove the speaker wrong. That is not the way things were done.
NYT> The meetings were known as Dealers [...] No-holds-barred discussions and debates would ensue, and no one profited more from them than Mr. Taylor. [emphasis added]
"no holds barred" - used to convey that no rules or restrictions apply in a conflict or dispute.
Perhaps this Burkus quote would make a good comment on the NYT article page?
We ought to do this on HN. Every week select someone to present and idea and we can all learn together how to fight over ideas and not egos. I think it would be really healthy and productive for the community.
> Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.
Being able to state another's position correctly even when you don't agree with it is also a wonderful learning tool. Not only do you understand their mindset, but it also tests your own mindset for any holes in your thinking and provides a direction to move your thoughts if warranted. The problem is making sure you are actually stating someone's opinion correctly and not just paying it lip-service. I can see how having a 3rd party would be really, really helpful.
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
tl;dr - Take the standard turing test that attempts to distinguish between human and computer generated text, and change the parameters slightly so that it attempts to distinguish between "this is what I believe" and "this is what my opponents believe".
This one tells the story from the precursors to time-sharing to PARC, using the figure of J.C.R. Licklider as a pivot, and was recommended by Alan Kay as better than Dealers of Lightning. I personally enjoyed both.
This book really is fantastic - if you work on anything related to the web and don't know the history of the ARPANET and how it was the foundation of the internet we know today, I highly recommend checking out this book.
“I went to see Charlie Herzfeld, who was the head of ARPA, and laid the idea on him,” Mr. Taylor recalled in an interview with The Times. “He liked the idea immediately, and he took a million dollars out of the ballistic missile defense budget and put it into my budget right then and there.” He added, “The first funding came that month.”
This must bring tears to the eyes of every researcher today.
Somewhat OT, but from the second paragraph in that page you linked...
> Taylor was known for his high-level vision and invention of the "any" key: "The Internet is not about technology; it's about communication and choice, if you want to press any key. The Internet connects people who have shared interests, ideas and needs, regardless of geography."
What? Am I understanding correctly that this is a joke about "the any key"? :-)
Then I see the black line and same name. Sad. Least he got to execute his vision, innovate, help change the world, and live a long life before he died. Best any of us can hope for.
>> In 1970, Taylor founded the Computer Science Laboratory (CSL) of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC). Through the 1970s, CSL researchers became known worldwide for a number of important innovations necessary to the creation of the Internet. CSL invented and built Ethernet, the laser printer, and the PUP (PARC Universal Packet) protocol. PUP was introduced seven years in advance of the implementation of the Internet protocol, TCP/IP. Within Xerox, all of these technologies enabled the construction of the first internet.
Readit News
He was certainly the greatest "research manager" in his field, and because of this had the largest influence in a time of the greatest funding for computing research. It is impossible to overpraise his impact and to describe just how he used his considerable personality to catalyze actions.
The key idea was to have a great vision yet not try to drive it from the funders on down, but instead "fund people not projects" by getting the best scientists in the world to "find the problems to solve" that they thought would help realize the vision.
An important part of how this funding was carried out was not just to find the best scientists, but to create them. Many of the most important researchers at Xerox PARC were young researchers in ARPA funded projects. Bob was one of the creators of this process and carried it out at ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC.
He was one of those unique people who was a central factor in a deep revolution of ideas.
Is anyone doing this today?
Bell Labs had this practice in the early 20th century, ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC it seems in the latter thanks to Bob.
"Create/develop the best" isn't a mentality or practice that I see in the tech world today. Unfortunately it's an idea and practice that also seems lost in my own field of education.
(edited a typo)
Lots of integrated circuit funding for satellites, ICBM missile systems, etc.
Because of circumstances, Israel has been the leader in drone technology and a leader in water desalinization and drip irrigation and water reuse. But Israel is a small country the size and population the size of New Jersey. Only so much a country of 8 million can do.
If we had the mindset of Israel throughout the US imagine the amount of good R&D that would come out of it.
Deleted Comment
My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parties are able to state each other's position to the other's satisfaction. One of his tricks as a manager was to help the parties get to that state.
This is either from Rheingold's Tools for Thought or Doug Smith's book.
update: kind of but not exactly like this great scene from Horace & Pete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4
The Myths of Creativity, David Burkus
Part of these meetings were presentations by PARC researchers. However, it was not a gantlet to be run, and it was not to train people to argue in a constructive way (most of the computer researchers at PARC were from ARPA community research centers, and learning how to argue reasonably was already part of that culture).
Visitors from Xerox frequently were horrified by the level of argument and the idea that no personal attacks were allowed had to be explained, along with the idea that the aim was not to win an argument but to illuminate. Almost never did the participants have to be reminded about "Class 1" and "Class 2", etc. The audience was -not- determined to prove the speaker wrong. That is not the way things were done.
"no holds barred" - used to convey that no rules or restrictions apply in a conflict or dispute.
Perhaps this Burkus quote would make a good comment on the NYT article page?
EDIT: or not - see "This [Burkus quote] is overdrawn and misses the process and the intent." alankay1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115147
> Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.
Most disagreements are to be found in the priors, which is why defining terms and trying to agree what the relevant priors are can be very useful.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turin...
tl;dr - Take the standard turing test that attempts to distinguish between human and computer generated text, and change the parameters slightly so that it attempts to distinguish between "this is what I believe" and "this is what my opponents believe".
Dealers of Lightning does a great job detailing his role in it all - https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Computer... that along with soul of a new machine really capture the spirit of that 60s/70s generation of computing.
This one tells the story from the precursors to time-sharing to PARC, using the figure of J.C.R. Licklider as a pivot, and was recommended by Alan Kay as better than Dealers of Lightning. I personally enjoyed both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_Empires
This must bring tears to the eyes of every researcher today.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/moab-attack-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_(computer_scient...
(One of my hobbies is contact flickr photographers and asking them if they're interested in having their pictures used on Wikipedia.)
> Taylor was known for his high-level vision and invention of the "any" key: "The Internet is not about technology; it's about communication and choice, if you want to press any key. The Internet connects people who have shared interests, ideas and needs, regardless of geography."
What? Am I understanding correctly that this is a joke about "the any key"? :-)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108797
Then I see the black line and same name. Sad. Least he got to execute his vision, innovate, help change the world, and live a long life before he died. Best any of us can hope for.
http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/robert-w-ta...
>> In 1970, Taylor founded the Computer Science Laboratory (CSL) of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC). Through the 1970s, CSL researchers became known worldwide for a number of important innovations necessary to the creation of the Internet. CSL invented and built Ethernet, the laser printer, and the PUP (PARC Universal Packet) protocol. PUP was introduced seven years in advance of the implementation of the Internet protocol, TCP/IP. Within Xerox, all of these technologies enabled the construction of the first internet.