Re: Response from a former IMPP Chair (Re: Last Call: A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging to Proposed Standard)

Marshall,

I found that when I tried to understand your note, it seemed to consist of 
three themes:

- A basic disagreement on the direction of the group, and an interpretation 
of history that appeared to say that the group had not consciously and 
conscientously made the decision to go down the path you disagreed with
- A number of issues that made sense given the interpretation above
- A number of relatively minor issues

I decided to address the first one; the second group did not make sense to 
address as long as we had disagreement on the first one, and the third one 
did not seem to me like one I could contribute any particular expertise in 
solving; in a less polarized context, I would see most of these as "minor 
wording edits" that the document editors would handle as a matter of course.

I am looking forward to your response.

                       Harald

--On 19. juli 2003 11:19 -0700 Marshall Rose <[email protected]> wrote:

>> WRITTEN IN MY ROLE AS FORMER IMPP CHAIR
>>
>> Dave and Marshall,
>> ...
>
> harald - first, thanks very much for the note.
>
> dave and i are having a bit of trouble co-ordinating our post-vienna
> schedules, so it will probably be a couple of days before we can respond
> in full to your reply. (but, don't worry... we will!)
>
> in the meantime, may i ask a question: it was unclear to me whether your
> reply was meant as an alternative interpretation of events or an actual
> rebuttal. if the former, that's fine. if the latter, then there were a
> large number of things which you just skipped over. should i interpret
> that as your agreement, or, if not, do you plan on discussing those
> issues in the future.
>
> of course, if you didn't intend to address those issues, that's fine. i'm
> just trying to figure out your position with respect to the breadth of
> material we presented.
>
> thanks!
>
> /mtr
>
>