On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:15 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sam, > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > > > > While I, too, can't speak FOR Microsoft, I am quite willing to speak > > > > WITH Microsoft. Particularly if the request was modestly scoped, and > > > > if doing so would sort the issue right from the start. > > > > > > > > > > It looks like someone from Microsoft has shown up to discuss our issues > > > with the OSP, patent grants, etc. Should we respond with a clear list as > > > distilled from this very long and often emotional discussion, or should > we > > > wait until they come back with answers. > > > > > > I think that it would help us to have a list of statements. Its clear to > me > > > that you might be the best person to make that list. > > > > > > I propose a vote of consensus - Do we (A) present a list of questions as > a > > > reply to Sam Ramji's posting "ApachePOI Email", or (B) wait for > Microsoft's > > > answers as Sam Ramji promises? > > > > > > If (A) becomes our choice, then I think we should reach a consensus > about > > > the list, one that is rather inclusive. I certainly think we should make > > > sure to ask all of Andy's questions. I also am not sure that his are all > the > > > questions that need to be asked. > > > > > > I am (A) +1. and (B) 0. > > > > I find it mildly disconcerting that this email is posted to [EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > and yet refers to Sam Ramji in the third person. I'd suggest that a > > reasonable precursor to either questions or answers would be a dialog. > > > > My hope is that longer term that the dialog continues. Sam has > > indicated (on this very list -- hi Sam!) that his personal goal is to > > make the specification easy to adopt by open source projects. Well, > > I've never met a spec that I didn't have questions on. If this > > mailing list could become the place where developers and spec authors > > were to discuss any questions of interpretation that may arise: that > > would, in my opinion, be a good outcome. > > Sure, but do we need to repeat the previous 100 emails, or otherwise > summarize the issues raised that are still open?
I see no need to repeat the previous 100 emails. > Andy's last 4 responses left me no feeling that we had any definite plan - > a repeat of his "self-immolation" threat was not helpful. I take it you are a glass is half-full kinda guy? > Shouldn't the end result of this discussion be an action list. My proposal > is to create such an ending to this thread now! Creating a false sense of urgency is in nobody's best interest. Trust me, I understand that this has been frustrating to all concerned. > I'm not ready to do a summary myself, and completely ready to just listen > to the discussion for awhile. It is not worth my effort to be treated like a > mole in Andy's whack-a-mole approach to discussion. Nor is in anybody's best interest for anybody here for this to be re-escalated. > Do whatever, I'm sure it will be the right thing, as you've always been a > gentleman. Thanks! Sam Ramji showing up here is a very positive sign. He is under no obligation to do so. I suggest he be warmly welcomed. I also suggest that you go back and reread Andy's recent notes. Significant progress has been made recently. > Regards, > Dave - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
