- ifip-tc6 - lists.rwth-aachen.de

*****SPAM***** Returned mail: Data format error
by The Post Office 30 May '06

30 May '06

The original message was received at Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:29:56 -0700 from informatik.rwth-aachen.de [93.20.97.212] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ifip-tc6(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de

1 0

Re: [ifip-tc6] [Ifip_tcchairs] Re: More "academic" now?
by Otto Spaniol 29 May '06

29 May '06

Dear Leon, thank you very much for your message (see below). I believe that this message must have partly bounced with resepct to the TC6 delegate list since I made a typo in a former message: It should read <ifip-tc6(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de> instead as of ifip-tc6linformatik.rwth-aachen.de. This has been corrected at least for my present message. I fully agree that IFIP should and must be ambitious. However, I'm totally against some dreams which are fully(!) unrealistic. One of several examples for such a missing sense for realities is one requirement for the "marketing/stakeholder... manager" namely to be an expert of all TC's and WG's in IFIP. This incredible requirement has been commented by Andre Danthine (homnorary member of TC6) as follows: ---------- > > So forget about the name and concentrate on the role. > > I really do not see it as such a big challenge for a person to be up to > date on what is happening in all TCs and WGs!! They organize > conferences on relevant issues - no rocket science about that. But knowing the relevant issues in all domains covered by the all the TCs is more than a big challenge. Andre ----------- I don't really know in which world Basie lives. Being up to date on what is happening in all(!) TCs and WGs"........(???!!!). He must be joking!!!! I don't even understand TC6, not to speak about TC2, TC13, TCxxx,...WGyyyy. This and other formulations in the document were reponsible for the rather critical or even negative statements obtained from TC6. Let's be visonary but nevertheless a little bit more realistic. "Constructive comments": Ok, but since Basie doesn't accept anything (!) of the TC6 comments (he didn'tnot even remove the word ONLY just as if IEEE, ACM, ITU,.. would be nonexisting or just negligable) such comments from TC6 side are apparently not worth the paper on which they might have been written. At the occasion of our recently held meeting some TC6 delegates that the same ("not worth the paper...") holds for the "New IFIP" strategy paper. This may be slightly exaggerating but why should we give comments if they don't have the slightest chance to be accepted. Best regards Otto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Dear Otto and colleagues from TC-6, > >just a short addition to the issue. In my view in the discussions so far >on strategy a lot of important and useful issues have been adressed. >However, the short/medium term urgent issues have been mixed up with the >long term strategic questions. Most of the notes and reports produced so >far "suffer" from this mixture. Therefore an attempt was undertaken to >separate the long term from the short term. A long term strategy should >have a certain level of ambition. TC-11 had its annual meeting last >Sunday and we spent a whole morning on the strategy of our TC. We >expressed pretty ambitious goals and will use that as our guidance for >current and future activities. No doubt that not all ambitions will be >realized but better to realize not all than to realize none (because of >lack of ambition). Therefore, I personally believe that IFIP must be >ambitious for its future. Naturally the wording must be good and careful >and should not lead to false conclusions. If that was the case in the >current proposal, constructive comments to formulate it better are >valid. But it should not be rephrased in a way that the ambition is no >longer present. > >The second part of the work in separating long term from short term >issues is to list and prioritize the short term issues. There IFIP can >make quick progress if addressed properly. This is a task that is >currently being undertaken and where additional notes will be >distributed hopefully soon. > >kind regards, >Leon >

1 0

Call for Participation - SIGMETRICS '06 (June 26-30, 2006 at Saint Malo)- Early registration deadline May 31
by Kave Salamatian 29 May '06

29 May '06

APOLOGIES FOR MULTIPLE COPIES **** Early registration : before May 31 ********* Call for Participation: SIGMETRICS/Performance 2006 Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems June 26th-30th 2006, Saint-Malo, France http://www.cs.wm.edu/sigm06/ We cordially invite you to attend the joint SIGMETRICS/Performance Conference held in beautiful Saint-Malo, which will bring together researchers from academia and industry. The conference covers state-of-the-art, analytic, simulation, and measurement-based performance evaluation techniques applied to all areas of computer-science and engineering. Highlights: * A strong single-track technical program, held in the Palais du Grand Large * Keynote address by Professor Dan Reed, University of North Carolina, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute, on "Performance and Reliability: The Ubiquitous Challenge" * Broad and exciting workshop and tutorial programs preceding the main conference. Full details are on the conference Web site. Important dates: * Early Registration Deadline: May 31, http://www.cs.wm.edu/sigm06/register.html * Student Travel Grants Deadline: May 10, http://www.cs.wm.edu/sigm06/students.html * Workshops: June 26-27, 2006 * Tutorials: June 26-27, 2006 * Main Conference: June 28-30, 2006 Raymond Marie, SIGMETRICS 2006 General Chair

1 0

The "document"
by Otto Spaniol 27 May '06

27 May '06

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

7 9

Fwd: Re: More "academic" now?
by Otto Spaniol 24 May '06

24 May '06

---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: Re: More "academic" now? Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Mai 2006 11:54 Uhr Von: Sebastiaan von Solms <basie(a)rau.ac.za> An: eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org , Ifip_tcchairs(a)ifip.org , ifip-tc6linformatik.rwth-aachen.de(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de , spaniol(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de , brunnstein(a)informatik.uni-hamburg.de Otto Thanks for your message. Firstly, thanks for admitting that TC6's comments were 'undiplomatic'. Secondly, thanks for acknowledging that you did not read the document properly. As stated, I always expected this as I could not see how you could react in this way as you were part of the TA and Council meeting where the matter was discussed. You agreed with all of TA that such a 'visionary' document must be drafted. Now to the format of the document. Many TCs completed the questionnaire sent out by myself and Leon early this year. Some put in a lot of effort and time to really provide new ideas (incidentally according to my records we did not receive a reply back from TC 6!) These comments had to provide some input to the new 'visionary' document. If not, we would have been blamed that we (Leon and myself) drafted a document without using the advice and comments provided by the TCs. Furthermore, during the discussions at TA and Council many other ideas surfaced, which were noted as possible inputs. Part 1 is therefore nothing more as a summary of these inputs. We were adamant that we had to show TCs who reacted that their ideas were at least noted somewhere. This is CLEARLY indicated as the purpose of Part 1. IF TC 6 read it otherwise, then be it so, but it just proves my point : They did really not give much attention to the document. The comment about which TC 6 is so upset, is just one which came from these inputs!!! Remember many of the TCs had brainstorming sessions about the questionnaire, and you know as well as I do that at such sessions ideas are noted which do not really hold water. Again, it must be extremely na*ve from anybody to think that IFIP can claim exclusivity in this area. A person thinking so (as it seems TC 6 did), really has no idea of the international field of IT. That is of course why this comment was NOT used in the later parts of the document!!! Please also note that these words were in quotes, which usually indicates some quotation Really Otto, I cannot believe someone believes this!!!! So, the word 'ONLY' is put to rest. Now your next reaction about the word 'THE' There is a massive difference in saying IFIP is the ONLY body, and IFIP aspires to be THE body. All companies, institutions, universities etc etc usually have in their Vision Statement that they want to be 'THE' best in some or other field. This is the idea of a vision - to have some goal which maybe you will never reach, but drives the body. Austria would be stupid/na*ve to state that they ' are the most important country in Eurpope', but there is nothing wrong with stating that Austria 'aspires to be the most important country in Europe'. TC 6 is definitely not the most important TC in IFIP, but TC 6 can aspire to be the most important TC in IFIP - a massive difference!!! So the word 'THE' is put to rest. Now your reaction to the 'Marketing Manager' issue. If TC 6 read more thoroughly the would have seen the following in the document : '* IFIP appoints a Marketing Manager/Stakeholder Manager'.. (whatever name is chosen)' Just as your reader zoomed into 'ONLY' they zoom into 'Marketing Manager'. Please read more thoroughly! So forget about the name and concentrate on the role. I really do not see it as such a big challenge for a person to be up to date on what is happening in all TCs and WGs!! They organize conferences on relevant issues - no rocket science about that. Now to your comment about a 'dreamish' style. What else do you expect from a visionary discussion document.? Remember, TA asked us to draft a discussion document based on TCs inputs - not a final 'this is how it will be' document! Of course IFIP has short term issues and problems which must be addressed, and the document acknowledges that, and includes that in Appendix A.. Please read paragraph 3 of Part 1 and Appendix A!!!!!! Now to your last comment about 'more scientific' Your comments do really not convince me that the decision of TC 6 not to support the document is based on proper discussion and facts. This is a discussion document, and such a reaction does not really help to try to decide how IFIP must move towards the future. Regards Basie >>> "Otto Spaniol" <spaniol(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de> 05/24/06 8:48 AM >>> Dear Basie, thank you for your quick reaction on our (admittedly not too diplomatic) statements on the "New IFIP". >From my point of view I have to confess that I couldn`t devote too much time before for the study of that document. This has turned out now as being a big mistake since I didn`t pay too much attention to what was maybe too harshly said by some delegates. But now to your comments: - You say that your statement "IFIP must exploit its position as the ONLY trusted budy..." was only a combining of TC's reactions and that it has never been used any more in the following. In this respect I want to remark that section 1 of a document is usually the one which gets particular attention. Thus to bring this formulation in section 1 is extremely questionable (at least if a reader doesn't read the document line by line very carefully). We might come to the conclusion that this whole section is superfluous if statements mentioned there are to be considered as null and void (?!). Needless to say that any claim of exclusivity of IFIP in the ICT world contradicts clearly point 4 in the annex, namely: "use ACM and IEEE as case studies" (i.e. as rather good examples). And one more point: Before citing this incredible word ONLY you mention that it is among the central "golden line" running through all received inputs from the TC's. I urge you to extinguish this strange formulations; it would be better to cancel the whole section 1 of the document! But even if you don`t repeat this incredible word "ONLY": Why did you mention it at all? Why do you write at least four times(!): "IFIP must be *the* first (preferred) choice for ICT" and - to mention some other exclusivity claims - "IFIP must be *the* preferred choice to be consulted", "*the* internationally trusted inter- mediate", and so on? This choice of the article *the* is extremely questionable and as suspicious and unrealistic as if Austria would say: "We are the(!) most important country in Europe". Once again: much better and more realistic formulations are needed here. - I come back to the TC6 comments concerning the market manager (isn?t that word *absolutely* misleading since a marketing manager will have to market something but you claim the opposite?). Ok, let's forget about the questionable naming. It is more astonishing which requirements this person must(!) have: Among others, she or he "must also be *totally up to date*(!) on the TCs and particularly WGs..."!! Such a person doesn`t exist in the whole universe and even if this person would exist then: a. her or his salary requirements would be outrageously high b. and this person would obviously refuse any possibility to become fired after one (or maybe two) years. I admit that our formulations are overly crude but your whole document suffers heavily from a "dreamish" style - and this style was at least partly responsible for the reaction of TC6. To our firm opinion, IFIP has much more vitally important problems than to deal with such unrealistic "visions" which are expressed in the "New IFIP document". For example, finding a way how to build a stable and manageable + attractive digital library despite the restrictions imposed by the Springer-Kluwer contract will be difficult enough. I`m not sure whether this answer was "better motivated" or "less "unacademic" (can you explain, please, what this word means?) or perhaps "more scientific". Probably this is not the case. Best regards Otto ----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------

1 0

More "academic" now?
by Otto Spaniol 24 May '06

24 May '06

Dear all, the following message was sent by me to the TC6 delegates and also to - <basie(a)rau.ac.za> - <eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org> - <Ifip_tcchairs(a)ifip.org> - <brunnstein(a)informatik.uni-hamburg.de>: --------------------------------------------------------- Dear Basie, thank you for your quick reaction on our (admittedly not too diplomatic) statements about the "New IFIP". >From my point of view I have to confess that I couldn`t devote too much time before for the study of that document. This has turned out now as being a big mistake since I didn`t pay too much attention to what was maybe too harshly said by some delegates. But now to your comments: - You say that your statement "IFIP must exploit its position as the ONLY trusted budy..." was only a combining of TC's reactions and that it has never been used any more in the following. In this respect I want to remark that section 1 of a document is usually the one which gets particular attention. Thus to bring this formulation in section 1 is extremely questionable (at least if a reader doesn't read the document line by line very carefully). We might come to the conclusion that this whole section is superfluous if statements mentioned there are to be considered as null and void (?!). Needless to say that any claim of exclusivity of IFIP in the ICT world contradicts clearly point 4 in the annex, namely: "use ACM and IEEE as case studies" (i.e. as rather good examples). And one more point: Before citing this incredible word ONLY you mention that it is among the central "golden line" running through all received inputs from the TC's. I urge you to extinguish this strange formulations; it would be better to cancel the whole section 1 of the document! But even if you don`t repeat this incredible word "ONLY": Why did you mention it at all? Why do you write at least four times(!): "IFIP must be *the* first (preferred) choice for ICT" and - to mention some other exclusivity claims - "IFIP must be *the* preferred choice to be consulted", "*the* internationally trusted inter- mediate", and so on? This choice of the article *the* is extremely questionable and as suspicious and unrealistic as if Austria would say: "We are the(!) most important country in Europe". Once again: much better and more realistic formulations are needed here. - I come back to the TC6 comments concerning the market manager (isn?t that word *absolutely* misleading since a marketing manager will have to market something but you claim the opposite?). Ok, let's forget about the questionable naming. It is more astonishing which requirements this person must(!) have: Among others, she or he "must also be *totally up to date*(!) on the TCs and particularly WGs..."!! Such a person doesn`t exist in the whole universe and even if this person would exist then: a. her or his salary requirements would be outrageously high b. and this person would obviously refuse any possibility to become fired after one (or maybe two) years. I admit that our formulations are overly crude but your whole document suffers heavily from a "dreamish" style - and this style was at least partly responsible for the reaction of TC6. To our firm opinion, IFIP has much more vitally important problems than to deal with such unrealistic "visions" which are expressed in the "New IFIP document". For example, finding a way how to build a stable and manageable + attractive digital library despite the restrictions imposed by the Springer-Kluwer contract will be difficult enough. I`m not sure whether this answer was "better motivated" or "less "unacademic" (can you explain, please, what this word means?) or perhaps "more scientific". Probably this is not the case. Best regards Otto

1 0

precaution
by Ramon Puigjaner 23 May '06

23 May '06

Dear friends, You remember that I was not in good shape during the last TC6 meeting. Ithought it was a kidney stone. The first symptomes are quite similar but yesterday my doctor decided that I has a hepatitis. I expect I have not infected all TC6 members. Best regards Ramon ========================================================================= Ramon Puigjaner Universitat de les Illes Balears Departament de Ciencies Matematiques i Informatica 07122 PALMA (Spain) Phone: +34-971173288 Fax: +34-971173003 e-mail: putxi(a)uib.es =========================================================================

1 0

Delegate list
by Otto Spaniol 23 May '06

23 May '06

Dear all, a little bit "less hot" than the "New IFIP controversy": Here comes the adapted delegate list after Coimbra. Best regards Otto

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Ifip_tcchairs] The New IFIP
by Otto Spaniol 23 May '06

23 May '06

---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: Re: [Ifip_tcchairs] The New IFIP Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Mai 2006 13:07 Uhr Von: Sebastiaan von Solms <basie(a)rau.ac.za> An: eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org , Ifip_tcchairs(a)ifip.org , spaniol(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de , brunnstein(a)informatik.uni-hamburg.de Dear Otto Thanks for your message and TC 6's comments. I must say I am surprised at the unacademic and unscientific comments made by TC 6! My basic impression is that the document was not properly read, because somebody did not like the idea. No motivation whatsoever is given, and several aspects were just highlighted out of context. I just mention 2 of TC 6's comments which just support the idea that the document was not properly read (or maybe understood?) : (From TC 6's comments) : 1. For example, to write that "IFIP must leverage (exploit) its position as the only trusted body of international pre-eminent experts in the field of ICT and ....." is absurd and shows a total lack of understanding of the work of the IEEE, ACM, the ITU, etc. This sentence comes from the part of the document where the reactions from TC's were evaluated and combined. Nowhere in later formulation is it stated that IFIP is and should be the ONLY such body. This is a na*ve interpretation in the first place! This comment clearly indicates that the document was not properly read. (From TC 6's comments) : 2. Spending money on a "marketing manager" to market items which IFIP does not have is certainly a total waste of IFIP funds Again this interpretation is a clear indication that the document was not properly read, because nowhere it the document is it stated that this person must 'market IFIP items' It specifically states that this person must try to determine what services IFIP can render, and not market anything!! TC 6 thinks that this document, with input and ideas from most TCs (including TC 6!), 'demonstrates a disturbing lack of knowledge of IFIP's real workings and capabilities' (sic)'! I however feel that TC 6's reaction , demonstrates a disturbing lack of knowledge of the real problems which is facing IFIP. However, with direct and indirect support from all the remaining TCs and SG, the document will probably be discussed at the Strategy meeting. I will therefore report to the meeting that TC 6 do not support the model in the document, because I personally think they have not properly read it, or do not understand it. If TC 6 wants to convince me otherwise, please do so with a motivated reply. Basie. >>> "Otto Spaniol" <spaniol(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de> 05/22/06 9:33 AM >>> Dear Basie and others, in addition to my recent message here is a somewhat more detailed comment on "New IFIP and DL". Best regards Otto Spaniol (TC6 chair) ----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------

1 0

Fwd: [Ifip_tcchairs] Events not reported to IFIP
by Otto Spaniol 23 May '06

23 May '06

---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: [Ifip_tcchairs] Events not reported to IFIP Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Mai 2006 12:31 Uhr Von: Eduard Dundler <eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org> An: Ifip_tcchairs(a)ifip.org Kopie: Niko Schlamberger <niko.schlamberger(a)gov.si> , Roger Johnson <rgj(a)dcs.bbk.ac.uk> Dear TC Chairs, Please receive as attachment a listing of forthcoming events (source: last TC reports), for which no Event Request Form has been sent to the IFIP secretariat. Consequently all these events are not recorded in the calendar of events. Could you please check the events and remind the organizers to send the ERFs. Best regards Eduard _______________________________________________ Ifip_tcchairs mailing list Ifip_tcchairs(a)ifip.org http://www.ifip.org/mailman/listinfo/ifip_tcchairs ----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------

1 0