From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 11:11:26 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Pdw9p6wEpIzBSkyn2tMxOQ)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:09:35 -0400 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 07/14/2007 02:09:37 PM, Serialize complete at 07/14/2007 02:09:37 PM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Pdw9p6wEpIzBSkyn2tMxOQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 07/14/2007 01:40:16 PM: > > Rob, I have a hard time following the logic you're using here. Why > should we try to build consensus for the LEAST popular of the three > options we voted on? That seems to fly in the face of common sense, > if our goal is truly to build a position that represents the > consensus of the members. > "Popular" and "consensus" have somewhat distorted meanings when we're talking about a committee that Microsoft stuffed with a dozen business partners at the last minute, who then voted lock-step with them on every ballot. Remember INCITS is intended to reflect an industry view, not favoring any one company or interest. I suppose, Doug, that you would have been happier if you had found just one more Microsoft Gold Certified Partner to join the committee, so then you could say you had "consensus" on a Yes position? Sorry, but this is a farce. The fact that you did not get a 2/3 vote is more from Microsoft's incompetence in stuffing the committee than for lack of discussion time. Better luck next time. It takes a lot of chutzpah to stuff the committee and then complain about lack of consensus. -Rob --Boundary_(ID_Pdw9p6wEpIzBSkyn2tMxOQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 07/14/2007 01:40:16 PM:

>
> Rob, I have a hard time following the logic you're using here.  Why
> should we try to build consensus for the LEAST popular of the three
> options we voted on?  That seems to fly in the face of common sense,
> if our goal is truly to build a position that represents the
> consensus of the members.
>


"Popular" and "consensus" have somewhat distorted meanings when we're talking about a committee that Microsoft stuffed with a dozen business partners at the last minute, who then voted lock-step with them on every ballot.  Remember INCITS is intended to reflect an industry view, not favoring any one company or interest.  I suppose, Doug, that you would have been happier if you had found just one more Microsoft Gold Certified Partner to join the committee, so then you could say you had "consensus" on a Yes position?  Sorry, but this is a farce.  The fact that you did not get a 2/3 vote is more from Microsoft's incompetence in stuffing the committee than for lack of discussion time. Better luck next time.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to stuff the committee and then complain about lack of consensus.

-Rob --Boundary_(ID_Pdw9p6wEpIzBSkyn2tMxOQ)--