THE PRESENT SET OF AREA DIRECTORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A LONG STANDING TREND.
(Is that better, Fred?) I support option 3). I also suspect that this is not a case of ignoring the consensus of those attending the meeting. Some people may feel that the best way for the ADs involved to find relief from their awesome burdens was to create a new directorship. If that doesn't make sense from their perspective, then why do it? Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 508 305 7214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area > > At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote: > >It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that > >wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want > >that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion". > > I don't believe it is being ignored. It is in fact a large part of the > reason the ADs are asking this question, and BTW the fact that they asked > the area folks the question shows an open-ness of mind. They take a lot of > !@#$%^ from the community, I wish the community would notice when they do > something well, and speak as loudly about it. > > But I should hope that not only would the wishes of the folks in the area > be looked at, but the wear and tear on the ADs, and the management > principles that apply. It has to be a sensible decision on all counts, not > just the presently-popular one. > > >I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with > >sub-ip. To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 > >(status > >quo). > > which is to say, wait until the work winds down, and then close the > temporary area. I'm glad we agree on that; from your last email, it > sounded > like we didn't. If you go back and read both emails that I have posted to > this list, I have said as much, and I think that's pretty much what Scott > said he came down to in the end.
