Re: Call for censensus on path forward

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Hi -

> References: <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (Bob
>  Natale's message of "Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:27:36 -0400")
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> To: Bob Natale <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>,
>         Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>, [email protected],
>         [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward
> From: Wes Hardaker <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:54:46 -0700
...
> Interesting.  So, you generally disagree with the reasons behind the
> chartering if both the EoS working group and the SMIng working group?
> 
> (on a side note, have you read some of the operator-requirements
> documents?)
...

Perhaps this is why you raise it in a side note, but...

I really don't see how the eos and the sming work (individually
or in concert) directly address the operator requirements,
no matter how interesting or valuable this work may be in
its own right.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 [email protected]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------