Dear Dipak and all others,
Could you please send me the document you sent to Basie?
With best regards Dipak
Here is the document. I believed that I had sent it to the delegates, too. The documents consists of the pages produced by Guy L. and Harry P. at the occasion of the meeting - in a slightly "moderated" form. Would you please check and give comments by comparing with the "New IFIP" document which you received some time ago (it is also part of the meeting documents of Coimbra). We will have to save the honour of TC6. We have been denoted as "unacademic and as unscientific". Best regards Otto
Otto, no, that is not the document we sent to "Basie". What you distributed is the raw document which I separated into the attached two documents. Note that what Basie got was a somewhat milder document --- compared to the one we voted for --- following Augusto's suggestion. Best regards all around, Harry IMPORTANT NOTE - Colleagues, please do not distribute the document regarding our Springer contract because as Otto said, in the wrong hands this document gives a potential hangman the rope he needs to hang IFIP! -H. Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Dipak and all others,
Could you please send me the document you sent to Basie?
With best regards Dipak
Here is the document. I believed that I had sent it to the delegates, too. The documents consists of the pages produced by Guy L. and Harry P. at the occasion of the meeting - in a slightly "moderated" form.
Would you please check and give comments by comparing with the "New IFIP" document which you received some time ago (it is also part of the meeting documents of Coimbra). We will have to save the honour of TC6. We have been denoted as "unacademic and as unscientific".
Best regards Otto
Dear all, I have not been able to attend many TC6 meetings and I came recently to the group, so my vision can be very naive on the subject. I have been reading the documents and trying to build a picture of the conflict from the outside, having heard some discussions also on previous meetings. What seems to be the base of all the discussion is the current situation/evaluation of IFIP. I feel that TC6 shares a negative evaluation of IFIP today, particularly in front of its direct "brothers" as ACM and IEEE. This evaluation, is it shared by the rest of the TCs? Is it shared by the rest of IFIP?
From the "new IFIP" document, it is not clear... Eventhough our position PPT presentation was "tough", I really think that it didn't deserve to be called "unacademic"! We could have say the same in front of the "new IFIP" document...
What I would expect from a strategic document is an initial analysis of the current situation, and the "reason to be" of an organization such as IFIP in front of what exists today in ICT around the world. If TC6 wants to work towards a new IFIP, maybe we should draft such a document. If we lost hope, maybe it is time to put our efforts on a better cause... -- Jo
Dear Dipak and all others,
Could you please send me the document you sent to Basie?
With best regards Dipak
Here is the document. I believed that I had sent it to the delegates, too. The documents consists of the pages produced by Guy L. and Harry P. at the occasion of the meeting - in a slightly "moderated" form.
Would you please check and give comments by comparing with the "New IFIP" document which you received some time ago (it is also part of the meeting documents of Coimbra). We will have to save the honour of TC6. We have been denoted as "unacademic and as unscientific".
Best regards Otto _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Jose, first thank you very much for your constructive comments. We understand very well that you can only attend part of our meetings. In Santiago we will have at least a one day "developing country problems" meeting on Friday, August 25. I hope that you can attend + even organise that meeting.
I have not been able to attend many TC6 meetings and I came recently to the group, so my vision can be very naive on the subject.
I have been reading the documents and trying to build a picture of the conflict from the outside, having heard some discussions also on previous meetings. What seems to be the base of all the discussion is the current situation/evaluation of IFIP. I feel that TC6 shares a negative evaluation of IFIP today, particularly in front of its direct "brothers" as ACM and IEEE. This evaluation, is it shared by the rest of the TCs? Is it shared by the rest of IFIP?
This view is - in my humble opinion - apparently not at all shared by other TC's or by IFIP in general. Rather than that, most other TC's take much profit from the work done and from the surplus obtained by TC6! This includes TC1, TC2, TC7, TC9, TC12,... and to some extent also TC3. These TC's don't care at all but they produce unrealistic dreams for which they will not have to work and where they are not guilty if they end up in nothing. Of course slowly they begin to remark that IFIP can come into a critical situation very soon. TC6 will similarly be in such a crisis since practically no more imcome will be provided in a short time from now because: - profitable events (such as IM or IWQoS) are stolen by other organisations - practically no more income is to be expected from book sales - and since there is no business model at the horizon which compensates for such problems. The membership income for IFIP's secretariat will be difficult to pay (not to speak about extensions like a "Marketing Manager", two or three digital library managers (which would be the real minimum) if we only remain with the membership dues; these dues are really limited and risky: take for example the strange case that Canada wants to be downgraded to a "corresponding member" (with dues in the order of 500 EURO per year instead as of several thousand EURO until now). More countries will probably want to follow this short-sided idea. The actual pocket money of IFIP (accumulated during several years with significant contribution of TC6) may then keep IFIP alive for a certain time but it will be rather an agony then a joyful life.
From the "new IFIP" document, it is not clear... Eventhough our position PPT presentation was "tough", I really think that it didn't deserve to be called "unacademic"! We could have say the same in front of the "new IFIP" document...
I don't know the correct definition of "unacademic", maybe Basie understood it in the sense of "not diplomatic".
What I would expect from a strategic document is an initial analysis of the current situation, and the "reason to be" of an organization such as IFIP in front of what exists today in ICT around the world.
If TC6 wants to work towards a new IFIP, maybe we should draft such a document. If we lost hope, maybe it is time to put our efforts on a better cause...
Indeed such discussions will keep us busy for a while.This is more than certain. Thanks once again for your contribution. Best wishes Otto
Dear Otto, I share with you this point and I will try my best to attend Santiago's TC6 meeting and help to organise this "one day developing country problems". Best regards, Neuman. On 5/23/06, Otto Spaniol <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
Dear Jose,
first thank you very much for your constructive comments. We understand very well that you can only attend part of our meetings. In Santiago we will have at least a one day "developing country problems" meeting on Friday, August 25. I hope that you can attend + even organise that meeting.
-- Prof. José Neuman de Souza, Dr. Universidade Federal do Ceará - UFC Departamento de Computação - DC Campus do Pici, Bloco 910 60455-760 - Fortaleza - Ceará Fone : 0xx 85 4008-9847/R-204 http://www.lia.ufc.br/~neuman IFIP/TC6 National Delegate VoIP number : 0xx 85 4008-9360 - R:10900010
OK, no problem, I can take care of that workshop organization. Please give me all the information you have (if there is some about that) and I can take charge of it. Regards, -- Jose
Dear Jose,
first thank you very much for your constructive comments. We understand very well that you can only attend part of our meetings. In Santiago we will have at least a one day "developing country problems" meeting on Friday, August 25. I hope that you can attend + even organise that meeting.
I have not been able to attend many TC6 meetings and I came recently to the group, so my vision can be very naive on the subject.
I have been reading the documents and trying to build a picture of the conflict from the outside, having heard some discussions also on previous meetings. What seems to be the base of all the discussion is the current situation/evaluation of IFIP. I feel that TC6 shares a negative evaluation of IFIP today, particularly in front of its direct "brothers" as ACM and IEEE. This evaluation, is it shared by the rest of the TCs? Is it shared by the rest of IFIP?
This view is - in my humble opinion - apparently not at all shared by other TC's or by IFIP in general. Rather than that, most other TC's take much profit from the work done and from the surplus obtained by TC6! This includes TC1, TC2, TC7, TC9, TC12,... and to some extent also TC3. These TC's don't care at all but they produce unrealistic dreams for which they will not have to work and where they are not guilty if they end up in nothing. Of course slowly they begin to remark that IFIP can come into a critical situation very soon. TC6 will similarly be in such a crisis since practically no more imcome will be provided in a short time from now because: - profitable events (such as IM or IWQoS) are stolen by other organisations - practically no more income is to be expected from book sales - and since there is no business model at the horizon which compensates for such problems. The membership income for IFIP's secretariat will be difficult to pay (not to speak about extensions like a "Marketing Manager", two or three digital library managers (which would be the real minimum) if we only remain with the membership dues; these dues are really limited and risky: take for example the strange case that Canada wants to be downgraded to a "corresponding member" (with dues in the order of 500 EURO per year instead as of several thousand EURO until now). More countries will probably want to follow this short-sided idea. The actual pocket money of IFIP (accumulated during several years with significant contribution of TC6) may then keep IFIP alive for a certain time but it will be rather an agony then a joyful life.
From the "new IFIP" document, it is not clear... Eventhough our position PPT presentation was "tough", I really think that it didn't deserve to be called "unacademic"! We could have say the same in front of the "new IFIP" document...
I don't know the correct definition of "unacademic", maybe Basie understood it in the sense of "not diplomatic".
What I would expect from a strategic document is an initial analysis of the current situation, and the "reason to be" of an organization such as IFIP in front of what exists today in ICT around the world.
If TC6 wants to work towards a new IFIP, maybe we should draft such a document. If we lost hope, maybe it is time to put our efforts on a better cause...
Indeed such discussions will keep us busy for a while.This is more than certain.
Thanks once again for your contribution.
Best wishes Otto
Dear All, I have following the recent discussions on "New IFIP" with a great deal interest. Here is a suggestion - Methinks it will work in India. Introduce INDIVIDUAL membership in addition to Country Membership. Provide a list of Digital Services. If TC6 desires, we can run the Portal for a while. With a modest INR 500 per annum, India can generate 100,000 members; i.e. annual revenue of 50 Million Indian Rupees (INR) or Approximately 5 Million Euros. We may need to share it with organizations such as Computer Society of India. If it is interesting, we can proceed further. This is the THIRD suggestion I make in the electronic discussion mode. The past two did not even get posted! I did not get a copy; so I do not know what happened. Professor S V Raghavan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: 91 44 2257 4359 Fax: 91 44 2257 0563 Res: 91 44 2257 6359 Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in Web: http://netlab.cs.iitm.ernet.in -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Jose M. Piquer Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:33 AM To: Otto Spaniol Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] The "document" OK, no problem, I can take care of that workshop organization. Please give me all the information you have (if there is some about that) and I can take charge of it. Regards, -- Jose
Dear Jose,
first thank you very much for your constructive comments. We understand very well that you can only attend part of our meetings. In Santiago we will have at least a one day "developing country problems" meeting on Friday, August 25. I hope that you can attend + even organise that meeting.
I have not been able to attend many TC6 meetings and I came recently to the group, so my vision can be very naive on the subject.
I have been reading the documents and trying to build a picture of the conflict from the outside, having heard some discussions also on previous meetings. What seems to be the base of all the discussion is the current situation/evaluation of IFIP. I feel that TC6 shares a negative evaluation of IFIP today, particularly in front of its direct "brothers" as ACM and IEEE. This evaluation, is it shared by the rest of the TCs? Is it shared by the rest of IFIP?
This view is - in my humble opinion - apparently not at all shared by other TC's or by IFIP in general. Rather than that, most other TC's take much profit from the work done and from the surplus obtained by TC6! This includes TC1, TC2, TC7, TC9, TC12,... and to some extent also TC3. These TC's don't care at all but they produce unrealistic dreams for which they will not have to work and where they are not guilty if they end up in nothing. Of course slowly they begin to remark that IFIP can come into a critical situation very soon. TC6 will similarly be in such a crisis since practically no more imcome will be provided in a short time from now because: - profitable events (such as IM or IWQoS) are stolen by other organisations - practically no more income is to be expected from book sales - and since there is no business model at the horizon which compensates for such problems. The membership income for IFIP's secretariat will be difficult to pay (not to speak about extensions like a "Marketing Manager", two or three digital library managers (which would be the real minimum) if we only remain with the membership dues; these dues are really limited and risky: take for example the strange case that Canada wants to be downgraded to a "corresponding member" (with dues in the order of 500 EURO per year instead as of several thousand EURO until now). More countries will probably want to follow this short-sided idea. The actual pocket money of IFIP (accumulated during several years with significant contribution of TC6) may then keep IFIP alive for a certain time but it will be rather an agony then a joyful life.
From the "new IFIP" document, it is not clear... Eventhough our position PPT presentation was "tough", I really think that it didn't deserve to be called "unacademic"! We could have say the same in front of the "new IFIP" document...
I don't know the correct definition of "unacademic", maybe Basie understood it in the sense of "not diplomatic".
What I would expect from a strategic document is an initial analysis of the current situation, and the "reason to be" of an organization such as IFIP in front of what exists today in ICT around the world.
If TC6 wants to work towards a new IFIP, maybe we should draft such a document. If we lost hope, maybe it is time to put our efforts on a better cause...
Indeed such discussions will keep us busy for a while.This is more than certain.
Thanks once again for your contribution.
Best wishes Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
There is an error in my calculation. It is just under 1 Million Euros and NOT 5 Million Euros. Sorry about that. Professor S V Raghavan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: 91 44 2257 4359 Fax: 91 44 2257 0563 Res: 91 44 2257 6359 Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in Web: http://netlab.cs.iitm.ernet.in -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of S V Raghavan Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:29 AM To: jpiquer@nic.cl; 'Otto Spaniol' Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] The "document" Dear All, I have following the recent discussions on "New IFIP" with a great deal interest. Here is a suggestion - Methinks it will work in India. Introduce INDIVIDUAL membership in addition to Country Membership. Provide a list of Digital Services. If TC6 desires, we can run the Portal for a while. With a modest INR 500 per annum, India can generate 100,000 members; i.e. annual revenue of 50 Million Indian Rupees (INR) or Approximately 5 Million Euros. We may need to share it with organizations such as Computer Society of India. If it is interesting, we can proceed further. This is the THIRD suggestion I make in the electronic discussion mode. The past two did not even get posted! I did not get a copy; so I do not know what happened. Professor S V Raghavan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: 91 44 2257 4359 Fax: 91 44 2257 0563 Res: 91 44 2257 6359 Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in Web: http://netlab.cs.iitm.ernet.in -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Jose M. Piquer Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:33 AM To: Otto Spaniol Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] The "document" OK, no problem, I can take care of that workshop organization. Please give me all the information you have (if there is some about that) and I can take charge of it. Regards, -- Jose
Dear Jose,
first thank you very much for your constructive comments. We understand very well that you can only attend part of our meetings. In Santiago we will have at least a one day "developing country problems" meeting on Friday, August 25. I hope that you can attend + even organise that meeting.
I have not been able to attend many TC6 meetings and I came recently to the group, so my vision can be very naive on the subject.
I have been reading the documents and trying to build a picture of the conflict from the outside, having heard some discussions also on previous meetings. What seems to be the base of all the discussion is the current situation/evaluation of IFIP. I feel that TC6 shares a negative evaluation of IFIP today, particularly in front of its direct "brothers" as ACM and IEEE. This evaluation, is it shared by the rest of the TCs? Is it shared by the rest of IFIP?
This view is - in my humble opinion - apparently not at all shared by other TC's or by IFIP in general. Rather than that, most other TC's take much profit from the work done and from the surplus obtained by TC6! This includes TC1, TC2, TC7, TC9, TC12,... and to some extent also TC3. These TC's don't care at all but they produce unrealistic dreams for which they will not have to work and where they are not guilty if they end up in nothing. Of course slowly they begin to remark that IFIP can come into a critical situation very soon. TC6 will similarly be in such a crisis since practically no more imcome will be provided in a short time from now because: - profitable events (such as IM or IWQoS) are stolen by other organisations - practically no more income is to be expected from book sales - and since there is no business model at the horizon which compensates for such problems. The membership income for IFIP's secretariat will be difficult to pay (not to speak about extensions like a "Marketing Manager", two or three digital library managers (which would be the real minimum) if we only remain with the membership dues; these dues are really limited and risky: take for example the strange case that Canada wants to be downgraded to a "corresponding member" (with dues in the order of 500 EURO per year instead as of several thousand EURO until now). More countries will probably want to follow this short-sided idea. The actual pocket money of IFIP (accumulated during several years with significant contribution of TC6) may then keep IFIP alive for a certain time but it will be rather an agony then a joyful life.
From the "new IFIP" document, it is not clear... Eventhough our position PPT presentation was "tough", I really think that it didn't deserve to be called "unacademic"! We could have say the same in front of the "new IFIP" document...
I don't know the correct definition of "unacademic", maybe Basie understood it in the sense of "not diplomatic".
What I would expect from a strategic document is an initial analysis of the current situation, and the "reason to be" of an organization such as IFIP in front of what exists today in ICT around the world.
If TC6 wants to work towards a new IFIP, maybe we should draft such a document. If we lost hope, maybe it is time to put our efforts on a better cause...
Indeed such discussions will keep us busy for a while.This is more than certain.
Thanks once again for your contribution.
Best wishes Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6 _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
At 15:34 +0200 23/05/06, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Dipak and all others,
Could you please send me the document you sent to Basie?
With best regards Dipak
Here is the document. I believed that I had sent it to the delegates, too. The documents consists of the pages produced by Guy L. and Harry P. at the occasion of the meeting - in a slightly "moderated" form.
Although I supported this document (together with the whole TC6), I'm not at all a co-author of it. All the credit goes to Harry! I mean Harry R., not Harry P., as indicated above... Best regards, Guy
Would you please check and give comments by comparing with the "New IFIP" document which you received some time ago (it is also part of the meeting documents of Coimbra). We will have to save the honour of TC6. We have been denoted as "unacademic and as unscientific".
Best regards Otto
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IFIP Strategy and DL#1DEB09.ppt (SLD8/PPT3) (001DEB09) _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic engineering? Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/
Hello The answer is written in the same way a preast used to (or may be still) talk to the non-believing people. I am chocked by an aswer that in such a way tries to demonstrate power by using no arguments other that we are silly and has not read the document approprieately. I feel the person that is responsible for the document as well as the answer should be invited to next IFIP TC6 meeting to learn us how to read the bible correctly and how to beleive correctly. As was stated in another mail. The "new IPIF" lacks analysis of the present situation. In the academic conference business we are competing with IEEE, ACM etc. But broadeing the scope of new IFIP will have us meet a jungle of new organisations to compete with. And where is the (free) manpower to broaden the scope? Where is the analysis? There is only an answer: a marketing person. I am not surprised if "IFIP" knows the marketing person already. Best regards from Finn Arve... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Spaniol" <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> To: <ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: [ifip-tc6] The "document"
Dear Dipak and all others,
Could you please send me the document you sent to Basie?
With best regards Dipak
Here is the document. I believed that I had sent it to the delegates, too. The documents consists of the pages produced by Guy L. and Harry P. at the occasion of the meeting - in a slightly "moderated" form.
Would you please check and give comments by comparing with the "New IFIP" document which you received some time ago (it is also part of the meeting documents of Coimbra). We will have to save the honour of TC6. We have been denoted as "unacademic and as unscientific".
Best regards Otto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
participants (7)
-
Finn Arve Aagesen -
Guy Leduc -
Harry Rudin -
Jose M. Piquer -
Neuman Souza -
Otto Spaniol -
S V Raghavan