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 andattribute-free encodings...
Rick, I'm not sure how you think you know everything my friends and
associates have told me. (Unless you're speaking only about your own
earlier notes, which I'll confess I didn't take as either polite or
friendly.)
As for why I'd suggest that it might be time for a change... I'll
point out that it was Allen himself who was complaining about the
TC's workproduct so far. My motive, since you raise the question, is
the same as yours: I want the TC to work effectively to produce
quality product. And I believe leadership is a crucial factor in
that.
Certainly I don't see any reason why technical issues would be
legitimate for debate but organizational ones would somehow be
verboten.
- Art
At 12:39 PM -0800 3/26/04, CONSULTRAC wrote:
>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
>
>
>