From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 12:02:18 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_pzYxuBhAPRhTKlUxaOQOPg)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:00:03 -0400 From: Stephen Peront 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 Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcfGSCmGVma4fQpWQbmPU5xQryRolwAAL3gA X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_pzYxuBhAPRhTKlUxaOQOPg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Rob. And I am suggesting that you are wrong, there is much more consensus in the industry that OOXML should be an IS than in this committee. It is the committee consensus that is lacking. Have an awesome day! Thanks, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:51 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: Re: [Spam] RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 Hi Brendan, I'm not suggesting that your opinions are not genuine or that your vote is not representing your true interests. But I do maintain that Microsoft stuffed the committee and that the membership of the committee has been dominated by Microsoft interests, and that the committee does not represent an industry consensus. I believe that a little reflection will show that these are not mutually exclusive statements. Regards, -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/ "Brendan Reilly" Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org 07/14/2007 02:21 PM Please respond to incits-v1@incits-v1.org To incits-v1@incits-v1.org cc Subject Re: [Spam] RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 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 --Boundary_(ID_pzYxuBhAPRhTKlUxaOQOPg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Rob…

 

And I am suggesting that you are wrong, there is much more consensus in the industry that OOXML should be an IS than in this committee. It is the committee consensus that is lacking.

 

Have an awesome day!

 

Thanks,

-Stephen

 

 

From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:51 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: Re: [Spam] RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 


Hi Brendan,

I'm not suggesting that your opinions are not genuine or that your vote is not representing your true interests.  But I do maintain that Microsoft stuffed the committee and that the membership of the committee has been dominated by Microsoft interests, and that the committee does not represent an industry consensus.  I believe that a little reflection will show that these are not mutually exclusive statements.

Regards,

-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/


"Brendan Reilly" <breilly@tkadvisors.com>
Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org

07/14/2007 02:21 PM

Please respond to
incits-v1@incits-v1.org

To

incits-v1@incits-v1.org

cc

Subject

Re: [Spam] RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 




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

--Boundary_(ID_pzYxuBhAPRhTKlUxaOQOPg)--