Re: [ifip-tc6] Meeting 2004/2 agenda
Dear Harry (R) and all others,
Otto, thanks for the agenda ---- even if it makes me sad that I will not be there.
Thanks a lot for your message. It was indeed intended to tell the missing delegates what they will be missing - in order that they attend the next meetings. You know about the meeting 205/1 in Waterloo (Canada) early May 2005. And meeting 2005/2 will be held (if the delegates follow the proposal) just after I3E (which is going to be held in Poznan 26-28 Oct. 2004) but the meeting will be held in Wroclaw juster after I3E. Thus participants can either directly go to Wroclaw or come by train from Poznan: two hours time.
One additional topic for discussion is from the note that Harry Perros sent on 10 October about joint IFIP/IEEE events. Harry wrote:
"In my 6.10 report, as you will find out, I am requesting that the 6.10 conference ONDM become a joint IFIP/IEEE conference. You will find my reasoning and justifications in my report. If ONDM becomes a IFIP/IEEE joint conference, FIP stands to loose income from the publication of the ONDM proceedings, but on the other hand they stand to gain money from a larger group of participants. (I am not sure if this will result to a positive or negative flow at the end!!)
"My motivation for seeking this joint sponsorship comes from my desire to launch a truly international conference on Optical Networks. TC 6 has no criticial mass in optical networks (unlike for instance, areas such as performance evaluation, or ATM networks back a few years ago). IEEE's ONTC has a critical mass, but they do not have a conference of their own... So, this marriage is likely to generate the correct environment within which a successful international conference can be born."
Since I won't be at the meeting either, I would like to go on record as supporting joint sponshorship for this event. I find Harry's reasoning a good justification. I find joint sponsorship a good way to make up for the ground we have lost in the optical networking world in the past.
There are two sides of the coin: Firstly, I agree that a joint sponsorship would be good in order to make up for the ground we lost in Optical Networking. Now the idea of having IEEE in the boat is nice but it also a certain "cheap trick" and it shows some laziness by WG 6.10. Secondly, the cooperation with IEEE risks to be a killer of IFIP and in particular of TC6. IEEE insists of having the copyright for publication and this is not acceptable for us. If we would accept then we would be very soon in the same situation as ICCC which are fully bankrupt and which want to dissolve themselves. Thus my position here is clear: No joint event if we loose the copyright for publication! I know that it is already too late for that in the case of the IM (Integrated Management) conference series but we definitively will have to stop these IEEE crocodiles in the future. We will of course discuss that topic in Bangkok; Agenda topic 11, I'll rename it accordingly. Best regards Otto
Dear Otto I don't know what you mean by "cheap trick" and laziness by WG 6.10. I have worked EXTREMELY hard since last May to rebuild the 6.10, which WAS IN SHAMBLES !!! (PLEASE READ MY REPORT) I have invested a huge amount of time in negotiating this with ONTC, because I believe that's the way to go. So, I don't expect to hear a thanks for all this.. but I don't think your perception and characterization is appropriate. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion for joint conferences. However, I hope that TC6 takes decisoin democratically and not be decree from its Chairman. So, let's see what the popular vote is on this case. Harry the lazy On Nov 11, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Harry (R) and all others,
Otto, thanks for the agenda ---- even if it makes me sad that I will not be there.
Thanks a lot for your message. It was indeed intended to tell the missing delegates what they will be missing - in order that they attend the next meetings.
You know about the meeting 205/1 in Waterloo (Canada) early May 2005.
And meeting 2005/2 will be held (if the delegates follow the proposal) just after I3E (which is going to be held in Poznan 26-28 Oct. 2004) but the meeting will be held in Wroclaw juster after I3E. Thus participants can either directly go to Wroclaw or come by train from Poznan: two hours time.
One additional topic for discussion is from the note that Harry Perros sent on 10 October about joint IFIP/IEEE events. Harry wrote:
"In my 6.10 report, as you will find out, I am requesting that the 6.10 conference ONDM become a joint IFIP/IEEE conference. You will find my reasoning and justifications in my report. If ONDM becomes a IFIP/IEEE joint conference, FIP stands to loose income from the publication of the ONDM proceedings, but on the other hand they stand to gain money from a larger group of participants. (I am not sure if this will result to a positive or negative flow at the end!!)
"My motivation for seeking this joint sponsorship comes from my desire to launch a truly international conference on Optical Networks. TC 6 has no criticial mass in optical networks (unlike for instance, areas such as performance evaluation, or ATM networks back a few years ago). IEEE's ONTC has a critical mass, but they do not have a conference of their own... So, this marriage is likely to generate the correct environment within which a successful international conference can be born."
Since I won't be at the meeting either, I would like to go on record as supporting joint sponshorship for this event. I find Harry's reasoning a good justification. I find joint sponsorship a good way to make up for the ground we have lost in the optical networking world in the past.
There are two sides of the coin:
Firstly, I agree that a joint sponsorship would be good in order to make up for the ground we lost in Optical Networking. Now the idea of having IEEE in the boat is nice but it also a certain "cheap trick" and it shows some laziness by WG 6.10.
Secondly, the cooperation with IEEE risks to be a killer of IFIP and in particular of TC6. IEEE insists of having the copyright for publication and this is not acceptable for us. If we would accept then we would be very soon in the same situation as ICCC which are fully bankrupt and which want to dissolve themselves. Thus my position here is clear: No joint event if we loose the copyright for publication! I know that it is already too late for that in the case of the IM (Integrated Management) conference series but we definitively will have to stop these IEEE crocodiles in the future.
We will of course discuss that topic in Bangkok; Agenda topic 11, I'll rename it accordingly.
Best regards Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Harry, Looking at it from the perspective of optical networking, I agree with the two Harry's that a joint conference would be good for advancing the topic, and that Harry Perros has already put in a lot of effective and hard effort in that direction! On the other hand Otto's viewpoint, regarding the impact of joint meetings on the future of IFIP need consideration as well. I look forward to a lively discussion of this matter in Bangkok! Regards, Lorne Mason -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Harry Perros Sent: November 11, 2004 7:05 AM To: Otto Spaniol Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Meeting 2004/2 agenda Dear Otto I don't know what you mean by "cheap trick" and laziness by WG 6.10. I have worked EXTREMELY hard since last May to rebuild the 6.10, which WAS IN SHAMBLES !!! (PLEASE READ MY REPORT) I have invested a huge amount of time in negotiating this with ONTC, because I believe that's the way to go. So, I don't expect to hear a thanks for all this.. but I don't think your perception and characterization is appropriate. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion for joint conferences. However, I hope that TC6 takes decisoin democratically and not be decree from its Chairman. So, let's see what the popular vote is on this case. Harry the lazy On Nov 11, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Harry (R) and all others,
Otto, thanks for the agenda ---- even if it makes me sad that I will not be there.
Thanks a lot for your message. It was indeed intended to tell the missing delegates what they will be missing - in order that they attend the next meetings.
You know about the meeting 205/1 in Waterloo (Canada) early May 2005.
And meeting 2005/2 will be held (if the delegates follow the proposal) just after I3E (which is going to be held in Poznan 26-28 Oct. 2004) but the meeting will be held in Wroclaw juster after I3E. Thus participants can either directly go to Wroclaw or come by train from Poznan: two hours time.
One additional topic for discussion is from the note that Harry Perros sent on 10 October about joint IFIP/IEEE events. Harry wrote:
"In my 6.10 report, as you will find out, I am requesting that the 6.10 conference ONDM become a joint IFIP/IEEE conference. You will find my reasoning and justifications in my report. If ONDM becomes a IFIP/IEEE joint conference, FIP stands to loose income from the publication of the ONDM proceedings, but on the other hand they stand to gain money from a larger group of participants. (I am not sure if this will result to a positive or negative flow at the end!!)
"My motivation for seeking this joint sponsorship comes from my desire to launch a truly international conference on Optical Networks. TC 6 has no criticial mass in optical networks (unlike for instance, areas such as performance evaluation, or ATM networks back a few years ago). IEEE's ONTC has a critical mass, but they do not have a conference of their own... So, this marriage is likely to generate the correct environment within which a successful international conference can be born."
Since I won't be at the meeting either, I would like to go on record as supporting joint sponshorship for this event. I find Harry's reasoning a good justification. I find joint sponsorship a good way to make up for the ground we have lost in the optical networking world in the past.
There are two sides of the coin:
Firstly, I agree that a joint sponsorship would be good in order to make up for the ground we lost in Optical Networking. Now the idea of having IEEE in the boat is nice but it also a certain "cheap trick" and it shows some laziness by WG 6.10.
Secondly, the cooperation with IEEE risks to be a killer of IFIP and in particular of TC6. IEEE insists of having the copyright for publication and this is not acceptable for us. If we would accept then we would be very soon in the same situation as ICCC which are fully bankrupt and which want to dissolve themselves. Thus my position here is clear: No joint event if we loose the copyright for publication! I know that it is already too late for that in the case of the IM (Integrated Management) conference series but we definitively will have to stop these IEEE crocodiles in the future.
We will of course discuss that topic in Bangkok; Agenda topic 11, I'll rename it accordingly.
Best regards 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
Dear Harry (P) and others,
I don't know what you mean by "cheap trick" and laziness by WG 6.10.
I have worked EXTREMELY hard since last May to rebuild the 6.10, which WAS IN SHAMBLES !!! (PLEASE READ MY REPORT)
I have invested a huge amount of time in negotiating this with ONTC, because I believe that's the way to go.
So, I don't expect to hear a thanks for all this.. but I don't think your perception and characterization is appropriate.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion for joint conferences. However, I hope that TC6 takes decisoin democratically and not be decree from its Chairman.
So, let's see what the popular vote is on this case.
Harry the lazy
Certainly my wording was too hard and I apologize for that. You know me. But on the other hand it was also on purpose in order to awake the delegates whose number will be not so numerous at meeting 2004/2. Also for me the distance and cost for going to Thailand is significant and thus I'm somewhat diappointed to see so many apologies. The situation is really critical (at least as it looks to me): 1. Look at the proposal for the contract mdification in the IM case (made by Raouf Boutaba who will also not come). It is attached and there it is clearly written what those IEEE crocodiles (or should I name them scavengers) intend to do. Just check the changes which are mentioned in red colour: The sentence "IFIP will hold the copyright" has just been deleted! As a consolation it is mentioned: "Pay IFIP a sum equal to the royalties paid by the publisher for the 2003 IM event multiplied by the ratio of Full registrants to the 2003 IM event". This is just to make us sleeping. I guarantee to you that this will not be valid any more for IM 2007 and onwards when IEEE will have discovered that these royalties are higher than those paid by the new IFIP publisher. A prof for this speculation is already your ONDM 2005 approach; see below. And so it will go on with a full domino effect (at least we call it like this in German language and you will know what I mean). The IM contract is still pending but I would very much like to say no to it. Let's the IFIP publication committee decide upon it - but they also are very cautious and don't express themselves despite many promises made to Raouf; Joe Turner said he would "solve the problem" by October 7 but of course he didn't react until today. This makes me upset. 2. Now for the case of WG 6.10: I have also attached your proposal for all others. Here you said that IFIP organised ONDC but that the organisors now want a cooperation with IEEE from 2005 onwards. You mention the predecessor IM of such a cooperation (just another example of the domino effect!). But you already start (!!!) with the sentence "The copyright will be owned by IEEE" thus you do not fight but you give it away for free! Of course nothing is mentioned any more concerning any royalties; thus you are even faster than IM where we will loose the royalties only from 2007 onwards! In your WG 6.10 you state that "WG 6.10 has to go to bed with IEEE ONTC". Sorry, but that is prostitution! I'm extremely sorry but selling an event to IEEE is not to be considered (at least by me) as extremely hard work. Why can't we believe in our own strength? Is it absolutely necessary for becoming slaves of IEEE with minimum income and minimum influence? Sorry for these hard but maybe clear position. I invite all delegates to comment in order that we can have a substantial discussion in Bangkok even if many of you will not be present there. Best regards Otto
I am a member of the newly formed ONTC (optical Networks Technical Committee of the IEEE) and attend their meetings at ICC and Globecom. As Harry pointed out they have a critical mass. In fact their meetings are packed. It is a very active technical committee. They have recently launched an IEEE optical network magazine, an optical series in the IEEE communications magazine, and an IEEE JSAC series on optical communications expected in the coming year or two to spin-off into an IEEE transactions on Optical Networks. At this point, they do not have their own conference and piggy-back on ICC and Globecom by organizing workshops there. It is hence a wise strategy and a great achievement of Harry to bring this critical mass to our IFIP conference which will clearly benefit IFIP. If we don't, they will start their own conference with which it will be difficult to compete. Raouf -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Harry Perros Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:05 AM To: Otto Spaniol Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Meeting 2004/2 agenda Dear Otto I don't know what you mean by "cheap trick" and laziness by WG 6.10. I have worked EXTREMELY hard since last May to rebuild the 6.10, which WAS IN SHAMBLES !!! (PLEASE READ MY REPORT) I have invested a huge amount of time in negotiating this with ONTC, because I believe that's the way to go. So, I don't expect to hear a thanks for all this.. but I don't think your perception and characterization is appropriate. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion for joint conferences. However, I hope that TC6 takes decisoin democratically and not be decree from its Chairman. So, let's see what the popular vote is on this case. Harry the lazy On Nov 11, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Harry (R) and all others,
Otto, thanks for the agenda ---- even if it makes me sad that I will not be there.
Thanks a lot for your message. It was indeed intended to tell the missing delegates what they will be missing - in order that they attend the next meetings.
You know about the meeting 205/1 in Waterloo (Canada) early May 2005.
And meeting 2005/2 will be held (if the delegates follow the proposal) just after I3E (which is going to be held in Poznan 26-28 Oct. 2004) but the meeting will be held in Wroclaw juster after I3E. Thus participants can either directly go to Wroclaw or come by train from Poznan: two hours time.
One additional topic for discussion is from the note that Harry Perros sent on 10 October about joint IFIP/IEEE events. Harry wrote:
"In my 6.10 report, as you will find out, I am requesting that the 6.10 conference ONDM become a joint IFIP/IEEE conference. You will find my reasoning and justifications in my report. If ONDM becomes a IFIP/IEEE joint conference, FIP stands to loose income from the publication of the ONDM proceedings, but on the other hand they stand to gain money from a larger group of participants. (I am not sure if this will result to a positive or negative flow at the end!!)
"My motivation for seeking this joint sponsorship comes from my
desire
to launch a truly international conference on Optical Networks. TC 6 has no criticial mass in optical networks (unlike for instance, areas such as performance evaluation, or ATM networks back a few years ago). IEEE's ONTC has a critical mass, but they do not have a conference of their own... So, this marriage is likely to generate the correct environment within which a successful international conference can be born."
Since I won't be at the meeting either, I would like to go on record as supporting joint sponshorship for this event. I find Harry's reasoning a good justification. I find joint sponsorship a good way to make up for the ground we have lost in the optical networking world in the past.
There are two sides of the coin:
Firstly, I agree that a joint sponsorship would be good in order to make up for the ground we lost in Optical Networking. Now the idea of having IEEE in the boat is nice but it also a certain "cheap trick" and it shows some laziness by WG 6.10.
Secondly, the cooperation with IEEE risks to be a killer of IFIP and in particular of TC6. IEEE insists of having the copyright for publication and this is not acceptable for us. If we would accept then we would be very soon in the same situation as ICCC which are fully bankrupt and which want to dissolve themselves. Thus my position here is clear: No joint event if
we loose the copyright for publication! I know that it is already too late for that in the case of the IM (Integrated Management) conference series but we definitively will have to stop these IEEE crocodiles in the future.
We will of course discuss that topic in Bangkok; Agenda topic 11, I'll
rename it accordingly.
Best regards 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
participants (4)
-
Harry Perros -
Lorne Mason -
Otto Spaniol -
Raouf Boutaba