From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 11:23:41 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:21:01 +0000 From: =?utf-8?B?QnJlbmRhbiBSZWlsbHk=?= Subject: Re: [Spam] 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-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by midtown.nycx.com id l6EIMBoK015134 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 410655504 Rob, I believe your email is completely inappropriate and insulting to me, my company and all those who would like to gain consensus on this issue. I for one can think for myself and voted the way I believe is the best way to move this topic foward. Brendan Reilly President Z5 Technologies . Sent via BlackBerry from Brendan Reilly -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:09:35 To:incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: [Spam] RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 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