---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: Re: More "academic" now? Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Mai 2006 11:54 Uhr Von: Sebastiaan von Solms basie@rau.ac.za An: eduard.dundler@ifip.org , Ifip_tcchairs@ifip.org , ifip-tc6linformatik.rwth-aachen.de@informatik.rwth-aachen.de , spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de , brunnstein@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@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 -----------------