HARI feelings
Ed,
Aren't we overdoing it a bit here in our reactions?
There is no need to include emotional and rhetorical
arguments. It seems to me Mr. Bynum has a legitimate
technical thread which deserves some consideration.
The politics of how and why we are here today I find
a less than compelling read. If someone wants to go on
about it, I suppose the rest of us can ignore the history,
and focus on the technical debate. I hope I am right in
assuming no harm was intended by anyone.
Respectfully,
Pat Gilliland
patgil@xxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------
At 08:22 AM 11/30/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>Roy,
>
>I think we are all well aware that you have a beef with HARI, but I
>for one would very much appreciate it if you would stop with the
>people bashing. This is extreemly unprofessional, and has a negative
>impact on 802.3.
>
>Statements like that below are quite inflamatory, and serve only
>to enrage, not to enlighten.
>
>You act like the people that were RECRUITED to assist in the development
>of 802.3z were some type of snakes that need to be "driven out". I
>can only hope that you do not see yourself as a self-appointed
>St. Patrick.
>
>Yes, I am quite obviously one of these vile and disgusting people that
>you see as a corrupting force on the IEEE standards process. And I'm
>sure that it makes no difference whatsoever to you that I, and numerous
>other people with ties to NCITS T11, were specifically ASKED to assist
>in the 802.3z development process.
>
>As technical editor for both clauses 38 and 39, I put in untold hours
>working to generate the best damn standard I could. Neither I nor
>my company have received any financial benefit from my efforts on
>802.3z, since we do not create products that are specific to any
>portions of 802.3z implementations. I was there ONLY for the benefit
>of the standards process, because I BELIEVE in that process.
>
>I was not alone in this development effort either. I was privledged
>enough to work under the direction of long-time 802.3 members, who
>were kind enough to show a neophyte the proper way to develop an
>802.3 standard. Since they held to a nearly impossible timeline,
>I believe their management and direction efforts to be worthy of
>priase, not the distain that you have shown.
>
>When I responded to your last tirade, I requested only that you use
>your expertice to educate, so that the 802.3ae development might also
>follow a fair and efficient process and generate a standard with
>equal success to 802.3z. Instead, you revert to name calling and
>deragoatory comments.
>
>I respectfully ask that you appologize to ALL the members of 802.3
>and their assocated development committies, and restrict your future
>comments to those of technical nature.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Grivna
>Cypress Semiconductor
>
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> I guess I am frustrated by the Hari association introducing a PHY
>> predatory device interconnect, driving out of the FC group that came
>> to power within 802.3 under GbE. Please see my comments highlighted.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Roy Bynum
>>
>