From pgilliland@methode.com Thu Dec 2 02:39:02 1999 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA01053; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:39:00 GMT Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26843; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:00:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991201195644.008e2ae0@mail0.methode.com> X-Sender: pgilliland@mail0.methode.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 19:56:44 -0600 To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org From: Patrick Gilliland Subject: HARI feelings In-Reply-To: <199911301422.IAA29473@geronimo.bip.cypress.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org X-Lines: 86 Status: O Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3113 Ed, Aren't we overdoing it a bit here in our reactions? There is no need to include emotional and rhetorical arguments. It seems to me Mr. Bynum has a legitimate technical thread which deserves some consideration. The politics of how and why we are here today I find a less than compelling read. If someone wants to go on about it, I suppose the rest of us can ignore the history, and focus on the technical debate. I hope I am right in assuming no harm was intended by anyone. Respectfully, Pat Gilliland patgil@methode.com -------------------------------------------------------- At 08:22 AM 11/30/99 -0600, you wrote: > > >Roy, > >I think we are all well aware that you have a beef with HARI, but I >for one would very much appreciate it if you would stop with the >people bashing. This is extreemly unprofessional, and has a negative >impact on 802.3. > >Statements like that below are quite inflamatory, and serve only >to enrage, not to enlighten. > >You act like the people that were RECRUITED to assist in the development >of 802.3z were some type of snakes that need to be "driven out". I >can only hope that you do not see yourself as a self-appointed >St. Patrick. > >Yes, I am quite obviously one of these vile and disgusting people that >you see as a corrupting force on the IEEE standards process. And I'm >sure that it makes no difference whatsoever to you that I, and numerous >other people with ties to NCITS T11, were specifically ASKED to assist >in the 802.3z development process. > >As technical editor for both clauses 38 and 39, I put in untold hours >working to generate the best damn standard I could. Neither I nor >my company have received any financial benefit from my efforts on >802.3z, since we do not create products that are specific to any >portions of 802.3z implementations. I was there ONLY for the benefit >of the standards process, because I BELIEVE in that process. > >I was not alone in this development effort either. I was privledged >enough to work under the direction of long-time 802.3 members, who >were kind enough to show a neophyte the proper way to develop an >802.3 standard. Since they held to a nearly impossible timeline, >I believe their management and direction efforts to be worthy of >priase, not the distain that you have shown. > >When I responded to your last tirade, I requested only that you use >your expertice to educate, so that the 802.3ae development might also >follow a fair and efficient process and generate a standard with >equal success to 802.3z. Instead, you revert to name calling and >deragoatory comments. > >I respectfully ask that you appologize to ALL the members of 802.3 >and their assocated development committies, and restrict your future >comments to those of technical nature. > >Regards, > >Ed Grivna >Cypress Semiconductor > >> >> Daniel, >> >> I guess I am frustrated by the Hari association introducing a PHY >> predatory device interconnect, driving out of the FC group that came >> to power within 802.3 under GbE. Please see my comments highlighted. >> >> Thank you, >> Roy Bynum >> >