At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that
wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want
that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion".
I don't believe it is being ignored. It is in fact a large part of the
reason the ADs are asking this question, and BTW the fact that they asked
the area folks the question shows an open-ness of mind. They take a lot of
!(_at_)#$%^ from the community, I wish the community would notice when they do
something well, and speak as loudly about it.
But I should hope that not only would the wishes of the folks in the area
be looked at, but the wear and tear on the ADs, and the management
principles that apply. It has to be a sensible decision on all counts, not
just the presently-popular one.
I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with
sub-ip. To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3
(status
quo).
which is to say, wait until the work winds down, and then close the
temporary area. I'm glad we agree on that; from your last email, it sounded
like we didn't. If you go back and read both emails that I have posted to
this list, I have said as much, and I think that's pretty much what Scott
said he came down to in the end.