MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...
Art,
I am simply unable to fathom your inability to understand the nature of the
"facts on the ground."
To Whit:
1. CAP 1.0 is DONE and out for vote. It will be ratified, or not, depending
on consensus within the organization, and according to its procedural codes.
No comment, act, or implication I have seen in any message traffic suggests
otherwise. Therefore, in my view, your concerns over the potential
"hijacking" of the initiative are unfounded and needlessly obstructive to
good order and discipline. Let the process work.
2. Why do you insist on making this a "me and them" evolution? No one is
taking YOU to task. NO one has suggested that YOU, or the SC's work, is
fundamentally flawed. NO one has suggested that there is no value in the
work done to date, or that it did not deserve to be offered for
ratification. By its nature standards-setting is progressive and
evolutionary. CAP 1.0 is a starting, not an ending, point.
3. Why would you suggest that the leadership be changed? How is such a
demand justifiable? Have you not benefited from that leadership? Is the CAP
spec not out based on consensus vote in spite of the Chair's personal
concerns? Is the Chair the only individual now offering substantive
criticism? In the latter case, certainly not. In the former; CAP IS out for
OASIS vote, in addition to the fact that your SC always received the support
it asked for, and did throughout the entirety of the spec's formative
process. To suggest otherwise is to simply be in denial, for reasons that
are apparently unknowable.
4. Why is it impossible for you to turn loose of this bone? One has to
wonder what motivates the level and energy behind your continual rhetoric.
All the committee cares about is the quality and usefulness of the final
product at every stage of its progression, and its value will be decided by
the organization through its standing voting mechanisms, rather than by the
committee. Factually, then, it is out of "our" hands.
You have been repeatedly and politely counseled by your friends, and
professional associates, that this argumentative tack is destructive and
uncompelling. Why do you persist in defending a position that does not need
defending, and serves no purpose beyond making everyone's life miserable. WE
are trying to WORK TOGETHER, while you on the other hand appear to be stuck
on a message that "only Art's views are valid." If that is the case, then
you are being both disrespectful and ignorant of the motivations, and
intellectual quality, of your committee associates. These are smart people
with long experience. If I were you I'd listen a bit more to what everyone's
trying to say to you. Believe me, in my experience, the ultimate product
will be a much better one at every stage of its life cycle. And since no one
has any intention of moving in with anyone else, the final product is the
only component that counts.
Rick