MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: Re: [emergency-comment] RE: Content ( wasRE: [emergency-comment] RE: [CAP] RE: CAP-list digest...)
Welcome back, Rick! We hardly had time to miss you.
Of course we all appreciate your personal loyalty, but as I've been
reminded many times, OASIS has a process. I understand that a few of
us... although not the majority... might prefer to continue arguing
over 1.0 until they got their way. But that's not what the TC voted
to do. The TC voted to advance 1.0 to an OASIS ballot.
Now if our Chair can't bring himself to serve as a positive spokesman
for the TC's work, even if it clashes with his personal opinions,
then I believe he has an ethical and professional obligation to step
aside.
And for our Chair to use his position to make public statements that
undermine the credibility of CAP, the EM TC and OASIS is, I believe,
more than adequate grounds for his replacement by the TC membership.
But I think Allen has had a lot on his mind lately and so I sincerely
hope it doesn't come to that.
Patronize us with corn-pone all you like, Rick, but I'll stack up my
contributions and my results in this TC with anyone's. And I don't
know anyone who's demonstrated more concern about the success or the
effectiveness of CAP than I have.
But you're mistaken: The process isn't about satisfying everybody.
If it were then anybody with an axe to grind or a grudge to carry or
just a craving for attention could hold it hostage forever. The
process is about finding those things we can agree on and formalizing
them and then refining them in orderly stages. That's what the TC
has done and that's what we're all obliged to work with, at least
until the appropriate time comes for the next round of improvement.
At least, that's the OASIS process my organization paid its dues to join.
- Art
At 7:08 PM -0800 3/23/04, CONSULTRAC wrote:
>Wow, am I glad I decided to come back to work with this group!
>
>Lets see; we've got a spec in float that the public comment list and some on
>the committee are suggesting needs work before it can be effective, we've
>got a committee member suggesting that the TC's Chairman is incompetent and
>sending email as such to the heads of all known government and sanctioning
>organizations while regaling us with pre-Christian history lessons on Roman
>General's, and everyone appears to be "low, slow and out of ideas." Man this
>is great. Someone get me a Prozac!
>
>Now that everyone has had their end-of-quarter "hissy," can we either look
>at the work that's been done professionally, and in context of the resources
>available or can't we? While I don't claim to be either as smart, or as
>clever, as certain of my TC brethren, I do know the difference between a
>sharp stick and a poke in the eye. In order for this thing to work we NEED
>to settle down, stay engaged and get the freaking spec completed to
>EVERYONE's satisfaction, or we're just blowing smoke up each other's skirts.
>As my pig farmer relatives used to say, (sorry Art, no Roman Generals in the
>family), "Life is not about how fast you run, or how high you climb, but how
>well you bounce."
>
>Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>