Re: [RE] Moving forward (... looking at the past)
Gentlemen:
Let us remember:
1) There was a Call For Interest with the usual presentations.
2) There were several Study Group Meetings with the usual plethora of
presentations.
3) There was a tutorial with the usual plethora of presentations.
4) All of the above presentations are on the 803.3 Web site.
5) We made every attempt to communicate with 802.3 and include
ALL interested parties in our ReInterest Group Ad Hoc meetings.
6) Only when it became clear that our thoughts were not welcome
on the 802.3 ResE Reflector did we start the Yahoo Reflector.
7) The ReInterest Group and its reflectors are open to ALL without
limitation.
To me it is a bit tenuous to imply that we have somehow failed to
inform the 802.3
voters.
Thomas Dineen
Michael Johas Teener wrote:
>It appears that there has been a communication failure at multiple levels,
>and perhaps some level-setting is in order.
>
>1. Denis, Yorum ... the SG spent most of its first meetings going through
>exactly the scenarios you suggested. The accumulated presentations on the SG
>website should make that clear. You are right, however, in implying that all
>this has not been adequately summarized for those that have not
>participated. This needs to be corrected ... (see my note of April 11, 4PM
>PDT).
>
>2. Arthur, Denis, Pat, David (Law) ... As David (James) noted, there was a
>controversy a couple of months ago about calling some side meetings "ResE SG
>ad-hoc". This led to some unfortunate misunderstandings that led to the
>creation of the ResE SIG Yahoo group (which, BTW, I created specifically as
>a "short term" solution to get all the organizational ramblings OFF the main
>reflector ... and the group was self-subscribing without any management).
>The unfortunate result of the creation of this group was that some issues
>brought up there did *not* get a larger airing ... if it was somehow better
>organized within the SG, things would perhaps have gone better. I have asked
>David Law and Bob Grow for advice on how to facilitate the side discussions,
>yet keep the whole group informed. I fully expect a positive resolution.
>
>(... and John, there are no "anti trust" concerns ... the meetings and
>announcements were as public as could be done, given that David James was
>asked to NOT put them on the main SG reflector ...)
>
>3. Arthur ... we would have *loved* to have a more experienced chair with
>802.3 experience and, until the last plenary, we had one: Steve Carlson.
>Unfortunately he had to drop out at the very last minute for personal
>reasons, and I was asked to act in his stead with only two days warning.
>Although I have chaired four different IEEE WGs, and two SGs (1196 Nubus 2,
>1394, 1394b, and 1394c), those were all MSC-sponsored, and I was certainly
>inexperienced with 802 procedures, much less 802.3 procedures. I apologize
>again if there was anything I did to impede progress or upset any old hands.
>
>So ... I hope this gives some background on what has happened so far. I
>believe things can go better in the future.
>
>