RE: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE: San Diego Agenda issues]

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian,

Thanks for your detailed response. I recognize and appreciate the time
you spent replying to it.

At this time, I will reply to just one point, that I think is
important to address.

I will address the others (as appropriate) later, noting for now that
we have identified at least 10 minutes on the current agenda that, if
nothing else, can be devoted simply to a better discussion of remaining
items on it. The drafts taking up that time could be held in abeyance,
and discussed, if there is time remaining at the end to do so.

Now to my point ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 12:21 PM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: Alex Zinin; Bill Fenner
> Subject: Re: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE:
> San Diego Agenda issues]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > I am very disappointed to see your responses to my two previous
> > emails, and take serious issue with the rather dismissive tone
> > of your responses.
>
> I'm sorry that you interpret the tone of my response as rather dismissive.
>
> I understand that you are disappointed both that your survey
> draft has not been allocated
> a slot on the agenda and that I have not leapt to embrace your
> suggested agenda
> modifications.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am _not disappointed_ on either of the
two counts above that you continually seem to attribute my email about
the agenda and the subsequent disappointment to.

[First, my emails did not say anything at all about the carrier survey
draft; they were (and are) purely a discussion of the overly full agenda,
and
how to free it up.

Second, it is not "my" survey draft.
-- Over a dozen people have contributed to it, all aware that they
were giving their time and inputs with the purpose of eventually having
the survey results published as a draft for discussion
within the IETF/CCAMP, and all, the carriers especially, supporting such
a discussion.

-- One carrier representative (who is not a respondent) has already sent
several comments on it to the list, supporting the document and supporting
its disucssion at San Diego, and at least two other people have
commended the draft on the list, and several others off list.

Third, I had made it quite clear in my very first email that my suggested
modifications were designed to facilitate discussion (which we are now
having); there was no implication that they be accepted without
discussion.]

I was disappointed because as professionals engaged in a rational
discourse, and as a Chair, I expected a better response from you
(not necessarily a detailed one, but certainly
a better one).

Indeed, there are time constraints we all work under (Chairs
and members alike), and, as you've observed, it takes non-trivial
time, effort, and dedication to put serious comments/feedback together,
and this is something we all should recognize when responding to
such input.

-Vishal