Hello Otto
1) The document needs to reflect an appropriate and accepted analytical and creative method applied in the strategic process.
2) Any strategic process method needs a status decription. The document needs a status decription of the landscape to-day concerning the landscape that IPIP is a part of and intends to be a part of in the close and far future. This landscape must be structured. I am confused about which landscape "IFIP" is talking about.
Reading the document made med feel that IFIP in the future should be better than IEEE in the academic conference production field, better than INRIA (a.o) in the research production field and better than ERCIM (a.o) in the research project coordination and acquisition field.
3) In addition to having a status, vision and objectives -- the document also needs to discuss "implementation" .
Concepts such as money, cost, "IFIP" cost, non-"IFIP" paid cost, "IFIP" paid labor, non-"IFIP" paid volontary "free" labor, non-"IFIP" paid travel costs, "IFIP" incitaments, "IFIP" career should also be a part of the document.
The reality is that the real working forces of IFIP that contributes with non-"IFIP" paid travels and labor are located in various parts of "the landscape" at the same time.
Finn Arve...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Spaniol" spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Cc: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: [ifip-tc6] IFIP strategy: once again!
Dear all,
you must have gotten the reply of Basie van Solms where he commented on my previous email on that matter. Anyway, his answer is copied below.
It that message Basie considers for the very first time the concerns of TC6 in a somewhat constructive way.
Now I would like to proceed in that matter. Firstly, TC6 has to admit that our reaction was too crude. In Coimbra it was merely said that the strategy document is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The short comments produced at the meeting (and communicated to Basie) have apparently resulted in a blockade which must be resolved.
My suggestion is as follows:
- Please read the strategy document carefully; it is reprinted
in the Coimbra meeting documents and it has been distributed earlier by email. The most recent (slighty modified) form is attached once more to this message). 2. Please communicate your suggestions for modification to me and preferably also to Basie von Solms basie@rau.ac.za **** not later than June 6, 2006 ****. If you do not react by this deadline than I will assume that you agree with the document in its present form.
We can assume that small modifications (see below in Basie's message) have already been done; thus no need exists to comment on these points.
I hope for a very positive and constructive debate. Let's forget our aggessive "falcon-style" attitude and return to a rather "pigeon-style" behaviour in the interest of IFIP.
Best wishes Otto
Otto
Thanks for your message. I think we are making progress on this matter.
From TC 6's initial message I got the impression that they do not support the document at all in any form, and therefore did not suggest any changes at all. That is why the final version was sent out without reflecting the present discussion.
From this last message it may seem that TC 6, in its first message, actually did suggest some changes to the document - those discussed below. If that is the case, I apologize for a possible wrong initial interpretation, and am more than willing to make the following changes, and send out another 'final' draft version:
Change the 'only trusted body...' to 'one of the trusted bodies ...'
Delete 'Marketing ManagerStakeholder Manger/...' to ' a person..'
Change ' 'be totally up to date on ...' to 'must have a reasonable
idea of the activities and potential services of TCs and WGs ... '
Please advise whether, with these changes, TC 6 may reconsider its position of 'no support' to 'provisional support, but with serious reservations to be discussed'.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards
Basie
"Otto Spaniol" spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de 05/29/06 3:25 PM
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@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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6