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
<mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> 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