From rexjaeschke@hotmail.com Wed May 23 14:54:39 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:35:28 -0400 From: Rex Jaeschke Subject: RE: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting In-reply-to: <200705231738.l4NHcVn6571429@jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com> X-Originating-IP: [212.29.185.74] X-Sender: rexjaeschke@hotmail.com To: jon.bosak@sun.com Cc: patrick@durusau.net, dave.welsh@microsoft.com, Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com, frank@farance.com, jerry.smith@disa.mil, Leonard.Levine@disa.mil, ndw@nwalsh.com, lprice@txstruct.com, Richard.Barber@mindjet.com, robert_weir@us.ibm.com, steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com, timothy@schoechle.org, masonjd@y12.doe.gov, ktrainor@ligent.net Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcedYUBU7mrx+Wg2Th2y1XiaB6NaYQAG1gIw X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-Originating-Email: [rexjaeschke@hotmail.com] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2007 21:35:33.0811 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B4EC030:01C79D82] Unless I misunderstood, IBM's offer was to host the meeting at an IBM facility. If you haven't been involved in "home-ground advantage" issues in a standards committee, then you probably haven't had REALLY contentious marketplace issues at stake. The classic problem here is that the home team can be tempted to bring in more than the usual number of participants, since they might work at that facility. But the procedural problem is that only registered voting and alternate members, liaisons, and some ex-officio guests have the right to speak and be heard at such a meeting. So, I say, why not eliminate the (hopefully theoretical) possibility. If one were a Democrat, would one want to debate a Republican at that Republican's office? Clearly, if we have a meeting outside any members' offices, someone will have to foot the bill, so I offered to do that up front. However, I have no problem if someone else wants to pay. Rob's offer arrived in my in-tray at 2:42 pm, 1:42 hours into that last meeting, and Rob wasn't participating in the meeting, and, apparently, didn't know we were meeting at that time. I don't recall Rob's offer being discussed or agreed to during our phone call. In any event, there was no record of that in Patrick's minutes. How can anyone be making travel arrangements when the final dates (and, I believe location) have yet to be determined? Rex ---------------- Rex Jaeschke www.RexJaeschke.com Skype: RexJaeschke 2051 Swans Neck Way, Reston, VA, 20191-4023, USA Phone: +1 703 860-0091, Fax: +1 703 860-3008 > -----Original Message----- > From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:39 PM > To: RexJaeschke@hotmail.com > Cc: patrick@durusau.net; dave.welsh@microsoft.com; > Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com; frank@farance.com; jerry.smith@disa.mil; > jon.bosak@sun.com; Leonard.Levine@disa.mil; ndw@nwalsh.com; > lprice@txstruct.com; Richard.Barber@mindjet.com; robert_weir@us.ibm.com; > steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com; timothy@schoechle.org; > masonjd@y12.doe.gov; ktrainor@ligent.net > Subject: Re: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting > > | V1 members agreed to meet face-to-face on Jun 28-29 or Jul 2-3. I > | expect we'll chose one of these options next Tuesday, so we can > | make travel arrangements. > | > | Microsoft fully supports having this meeting. However, we believe > | it should be held in a V1 member-neutral environment. > | > | We propose having the meeting at an airport hotel in Chicago (for > example), > | since that area is centrally located and well serviced by airlines. > | Microsoft is willing to organize and pay for the meeting > | facility. > > I'm not clear on how a facility paid for by Microsoft is more > "member-neutral" than a facility paid for by IBM. Please explain. > > Also, please explain why the ownership of the venue makes any > difference to the quality of our work. I don't believe that this > has ever been raised as a consideration in any previous work of > this committee. > > | Since this is only 5 weeks away, in order to book a hotel, we'll > | need to move fast; that is, we'll need to agree on a location > | (primary and, possibly, alternate) and get a rough head count > | during the Tue meeting. > > We already agreed on Washington during our last phone conference. > This location was agreeable to everyone, including Rex. I see no > reason to change a decision already made and for which people have > already begun making travel arrangements. > > Jon