RE: [emergency] IFSC was: RE: [emergency-msg] Any word from Jamie? Notes.

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

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
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kon Wilms [mailto:kon.wilms@ndsamericas.com]
>>Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:21 PM
>>To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: [emergency] IFSC was: RE: [emergency-msg] Any word from Jamie?
>>Notes.
>>
>>Just to add,
>>
>>Maybe we also should discuss exactly what if anything the IFSC is going
>>to accomplish in the near-term future. Up until this point it has
>>largely been a do-nothing group (not by intentions, but by
>>non-execution). I think it is prime time to give it a good kick in the
>>ass and get some direction or abandon it altogether.
>>
>>My concern is that the longer it continues to produce nothing, the more
>>obvious it will become that it is simply another black-hole standards
>>group that cannot be relied upon to deliver any goods.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Kon
>>