Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [Fwd: SUO: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion]

Frank,
A disagreement about who would type a one page letter into a word processor held up the distribution of this information for two months?  

No information like "a legal opinion has been given" or "the Board of Governors has passed a resolution" was passed to the SUO despite Jim's responsibility to do so - and his past assurances that he was tracking this situation and would keep us informed.  It also seems clear from Judy Gorman's note of 12/27/01 and Lowell Johnson's note of 01/14/02 that they believed that Jim had already communicated this information to the SUO - although perhaps not effectively or specifically.  It does seem they were unaware that no information had been given to the SUO.  

Jim was aware of significant events within the IEEE  important to the SUO WG and withheld information he had a responsibility to distribute.  

Bob

Frank Farance wrote:
3.0.5.32.20020121114440.0398f540@farance.com"> 
At 20:36 2002-01-20 -0800, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
Lowell / Judy,
Here is the note from Jim Schoening that I mention in my previous message.  He characterizes the BoG resolution as guidance.  I interpreted it as a directive. There is a long legal opinion attached to Jim's note from the in house counsel for Teknowledge that appears to dispute the Dorsey and Whitney opinion.  Teknowledge is the source of the SUMO.

It is perhaps interesting to note the timing of Jim's communication to the SUO WG regarding these matters.  The Dorsey and Whitney letter was dated 11/07/01. Sometime in November (I'm not sure of the date) the IEEE SA BoG adopted the resolution.  Probably earlier but by 12/10/01 Jim was aware of these decisions and (I believe) directed to communicate them to the SUO WG. On 12/27/01 Judy Gorman again directed Jim to communicate this information to the WG.  On 01/14/02 Lowell Johnson directed Jim to communicate the legal opinion and BoG resolution to the SUO WG.  On 01/18/02 Jim finally passe
d on the information.  Perhaps a way of insuring effective communications is to simply copy the SUO reflector on your communications with Jim.

Bob

Bob-

Perhaps this is the only point that I agree with you.  I asked for the information, too, and made requests to Judy Gorman, just like you, too.  However, Jim was given a paper copy of the document, which is difficult to distribute to an all E-mail (and no postal mail) WG.  Jim told me he requested a copy of the letter in electronic form.  It is Judy's office (both Judy and Sue Tatiner) that refused to make the any electronic version (text, PDF, MS-Word) available.

At one point, Judy/Sue insisted that they just didn't want the text of the letter, they wanted the whole document on letterhead to be distributed.  Unforuntately, they were unwilling to supply the letter.  Ultimately, after the holidays Jim decided to type the letter.

You question should be: why did IEEE refuse to send electronic copy for distribution?  Again, it was IEEE staff (Judy/Sue) being uncooperative.

And since you don't seem to believe me on the u
ncooperative/incompetent status of IEEE folks, ask them: where was the PDF or MS-Word or text file that they sent to Jim for distribution to an all E-mail list?  Ask them why they refused to do this.

So perhaps a better way of insuring effective communications is to simply have the IEEE staff communication messages in a form that is suitable for communication.

-FF
_______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.     T: +1 212 486 4700   F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com        http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure