RE: [802SEC] More on ArrayComm - another slide
I have reviewed the slides, and I agree with Carl and Bill that even
with slide 16, there is still the implication that iBurst is based on
802.20 stands. At least that is my reading. I feel the working on
slide 16 is pretty ambiguous and am less concerned with making changes
on that slide, though its clarity could certainly be improved.
While the spoken words Joanne used may have clarified things, readers
have no access to those words after the fact. So I think it is
important that correction be made. Clearly Joanne has already agreed to
such correction. So for the near term I feel we should consider this
issue adequately addressed.
As to the matter of exact wording, I feel "the less cooks the better".
I would suggest that we ask Joanne, Carl, and Mark (since they are all
physically present) to set aside any personal differences and work out
an agreed wording between them using the comments on this reflector as
guidance. It would be nice if they feed back what ever wording is
agreed upon to this reflector for our reference.
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:42 PM
To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] More on ArrayComm - another slide
While Ms. Wilson is entitled to her opinions, slide 16 clearly implies
to me that iBurst is standards based on 802.20, and the last slide does
not, in my opinion, mitigate that implication.
Since in general it is only the printed material and/or slides, not the
words that were spoken, that survive a seminar/workshop/etc. in recorded
form, the accuracy of those printed materials and slides is of primary
"Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)" wrote:
> Ms. Wilson has accused me of "attacking her personally" by "taking the
slide (I sent from her presentation) out of context."
> Her response to my sending what I considered to be text making
inaccurate claims to the EC has been to threaten to complain to my
employer. My position is that as a member of the EC, I have a
fiduciary-like duty to 802, even though this matter does not directly
> She stated the view that the last statement on the last slide of her
presentation mitigates what I (and apparently others) believe to be
inaccurate claims as to ArrayComm's technology being "...
standards-based (IEEE 802.20) ..."
> In the interest of fairness, I am attaching the last slide from her
presentation with the closing statement that she believes mitigates the
text from slide 16 that I sent earlier.
> I disagree with her assertion that that either or both the last
statement on the last slide and her verbal "clairification" in response
to my question during the Q&A following her presentation "cures all
ills" ... and I have told her that that is my personal view.
> ArrayComm_last_slide_CITEL.ppt Type:
> Encoding: base64