From robert_weir@us.ibm.com Thu May 24 04:22:49 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_fL69HOewMN2xRtQzlS5SYQ)" Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:23:07 +0200 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting In-reply-to: <003701c79d82$485d93b0$d918bb10$@com> To: Rex Jaeschke Cc: dave.welsh@microsoft.com, Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com, frank@farance.com, jerry.smith@disa.mil, jon.bosak@sun.com, ktrainor@ligent.net, Leonard.Levine@disa.mil, lprice@txstruct.com, masonjd@y12.doe.gov, ndw@nwalsh.com, patrick@durusau.net, Richard.Barber@mindjet.com, steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com, timothy@schoechle.org X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 05/24/2007 07:23:07 AM, Serialize complete at 05/24/2007 07:23:07 AM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_fL69HOewMN2xRtQzlS5SYQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT For the record, I don't work in DC. Never have. I'll be on a plane to attend like anyone else. So no "homefield advantage". And if I wanted to bring additional people, alternate members, liaisons, ex-officio guests, etc., then I could do so almost anywhere, right? IBM has a bigger facility in Chicago than in DC. In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic. You may notice that IBM does even have an alternate member in V1. And we certainly did not supersize our contingency by purchasing a seat for a 2nd alternate. It was a simple, honest offer to host the meeting. I thought the offer was received and accepted. I've started making plans. -Rob __________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ "Rex Jaeschke" 05/23/2007 11:35 PM To cc , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject RE: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting 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 --Boundary_(ID_fL69HOewMN2xRtQzlS5SYQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
For the record, I don't work in DC.  Never have.  I'll be on a plane to attend like anyone else.   So no "homefield advantage".   And if I wanted to bring additional people, alternate members, liaisons, ex-officio guests, etc., then I could do so almost anywhere, right?  IBM has a bigger facility in Chicago than in DC.

In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic.  You may notice that IBM does even have an alternate member in V1.  And we certainly did not  supersize our contingency by purchasing a seat for a 2nd alternate.   It was a simple, honest offer to host the meeting.   I thought the offer was received and accepted.  I've started making plans.  

-Rob

__________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/



"Rex Jaeschke" <RexJaeschke@hotmail.com>

05/23/2007 11:35 PM

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>
Subject
RE: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting





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


--Boundary_(ID_fL69HOewMN2xRtQzlS5SYQ)--