MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] IFSC was: RE: [emergency-msg] Any word from Jamie? Notes.
Guys, I think it would be both unproductive and unfair to turn this
into a matter of personalities. The framing of the IF SC's mission
has always been broad and, to a number of us, relatively vague. I'm
not sure anyone could have made it work either better or worse than
it has in the absence of some concrete and specific goals.
Maybe the question we should be asking, after almost a
year-and-a-half of experiment, is whether an "Infrastructure" SC as
currently defined is actually a useful mechanism to advance the TC's
work... and if not, what other division of labor might be more
productive. We aren't required to keep the same SC structure forever.
In particular I'd ask whether infrastructure is an area that needs
(or will accept) standardization through the OASIS process.
- Art
At 2:48 PM -0700 8/17/04, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>I thought, and think that you are doing just fine. We already have
>some traction going with suggestions on how to proceed and avoid
>becoming an empty potential. A good chair doesn't usually make
>things happen, they help things happen.Of course there are always
>exceptions. It's easy to lose track of that, as I know from personal
>experience.
>
>Ciao,
>Rex
>
>At 2:53 PM -0400 8/17/04, Tom Merkle wrote:
>>Kon,
>>Since you seem to have an idea on where the IF SC needs to go, I invite
>>you to take my position as IF SC co-chair. I have never been associated
>>with a black-hole standards group and it is not my intention to start
>>now.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Tom Merkle
>>
>>
>>