GGF17 Press release draft (Re: [scrm-wg] SCRM Meeting Monday 4/10)

[Wijnen, Bert (Bert)]

OK, I'll bite, see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 14:01
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM; scrm-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: GGF17 Press release draft (Re: [scrm-wg] SCRM Meeting
> Monday 4/10)
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> There are real contents on the wiki page we have archived.

I guess we differ in opinion. Assuming you mean "achived" instead 
of "archived".

But even if you believe we have achieved something, then I am appalled
to see it called a MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT after 2 years of basically bla-bla
on mailing lists, and just a very high-level, no detail, spagettu pot of
listing many acronyms.

> AFAIK, it is the first time that experts from multiple SDOs agreed
> the following resource management stuffs.

I really wonder how you conclude that the real (technical) experts
of multipel SDOs do agree? I will admit that I do not have a clear view
on how well this activity has been spread inside other organizations, 
and if such was done, how much real experts (people who write
architectures, write code, and implement it all in products) have
really participated or just been silent (which may have given some
of us the idea that those epxerts agree).

I know that in IETF, the real hard-working experts (those who 
define protocols and who also implement them) have not been 
participating. Whenever I exposed any of this SCRM material, 
I basically got a resounding silence. And I for one do not take
a "resounding silence" as an expression of consent or agreement.

The fact that many real technical people couldn't care less about 
whatever wiki pages this small groups of "organizational leadership"
create, that fact does not mean that these people agree.

Besides, I still believe that all that has been sofar is that each of
us has been "pushing/promoting" his/her own organizations material,
just to be sure it is included in these pages (i.e. what I call
lip-service).

> - Glossary
> - Unified architecture
> - Taxonomy
> 
> http://testforge.ggf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.scrm-wg/
> wiki/Landscape
> 
> I'm sorry you could not attend these discussions so much in the
> past.
> 

I attended in the beginning more than towards the end.
The fact that a lot of time was spend to just discuss press-release,
when to meet next, where to have f2f meetings, how to convert from 
one documentation-format to the other etc etc did not make me
enthusiastic to keep dialing in. 

> Also, you have committed but could not make IETF summary.
> 

So ??? What would it help?
You have an IETF summary, which is the abstract (more or less) of each of
the documents. That is an admin task and appareantly someone has done that.
I continued to not be motivated to do the task (even though I promised
to do so a few times, so you can blame me for that, that is justified),
because it seemed so futile and unimportant. What help is it that you
have a list of RFCs with their abstract on your WIKI pages? Is that
one of the MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTs that justifies another HOOPLA of PRESS
RELEASE? For all I can tell, the other summaries of other organizations
is very much the same. So again, WHAT IS THE MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT to
justify another press-release?

The high level pictures in the landscape page are so abstract and high level
that most experts (who write code and implement protocols and interfaces)
probably can't get excited, because there is always a way to show that
your interface fits in there as well.

Oh well... 
Bert
Bert