Dear Otto, Harry, and others on IFIP TC6:
I support Harry Perros and Harry Rudin's position on this issue and believe that there is a lot to be gained by joint cooperation between IFIP, the IEEE, or other member societies of IFIP. We must not lose site of the fact that there are significant reasons why a conference might want sponsorship by an organization like the IEEE. One reason is that the IEEE provides financial backing for a conference so that the organizers do not face grave financial consequences in the event that the event fails. This is something that it is critically important for many conference organizers. The IEEE also offers other services for helping out conferences which IFIP doesn't.
Regarding publications, there are advantages to using the IEEE press since the proceedings will be widely available via the IEEE digital library. Several discussions we have had within TC6 have highlighted the continuing problems that IFIP publications have faced. Therefore, it should be clear why people prefer going with the IEEE press.
It is also important for us to give significant weight to the views of people like Harry Perros in deciding what is best for their communities. Harry was unanimously endorsed as the WG6.10 Chair a few months ago by everyone on the TC6 mailing list who expressed an opinion, previously chaired WG6.3, and is quite senior in the networking research community. If he thinks that this kind of an agreement is best for ONDM, then I trust his judgement. If we simply reject agreements like this, one consequence could be that organizers of such conferences simply drop IFIP in which case IFIP gets nothing.
It is a mistake to simply view IFIP as a competitor to the IEEE, ACM, or any other IFIP member societies. My understanding is that given the IFIP fee structure, the IEEE Computer Society pays one of the largest membership fees to IFIP of any organization. When the Chair of our TC refers to IEEE members as "crocodiles" and "scavengers", that sets the wrong tone for bringing about the cooperation which is needed for us to be the most effective. As an international organization, IFIP has a significant role to play in the computer science research community. Despite the fact that the IEEE and ACM have a large number of international members, many people still see them as being US-based. Therefore, having an endorsement from an organization from IFIP should be something that conferences naturally seek out for achieving international stature. If we focus on this aspect and work with all of the member societies to better publicize IFIP events in countries all over the world, then there would be significantly more conferences that would seek out our endorsement.
Best Regards, Arun
|---------+-------------------------------------> | | Otto Spaniol | | | <spaniol@informatik.rwth-a| | | achen.de> | | | Sent by: | | | ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWT| | | H-Aachen.DE | | | | | | | | | 11/11/2004 07:58 AM | | | | |---------+------------------------------------->
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | To: Harry Perros hp@csc.ncsu.edu, ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de | | cc: | | Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Meeting 2004/2 agenda | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
#### IFIPagreement1127(revised) 3.doc has been removed from this note on November 11, 2004 by Arun Iyengar #### IFIPIEEE.doc has been removed from this note on November 11, 2004 by Arun Iyengar #### Report2004(2) .doc has been removed from this note on November 11, 2004 by Arun Iyengar