----------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Winkler, Arnold F [mailto:Arnold.Winkler@unisys.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:33 AM
To: 'McMillan, Kate [ITIC]'; 'Hill, John [Sun]'; 'Thewlis, David [L2]';
'Hogan, Mike [NIST]'; 'Richards, Russ [DISA]'
Cc: 'Ryland, Jim'
Subject: FW: Internet tools for Standards Meetings
 

Hi folks,

I found that in my In-mail today  - something to consider in the discussions
of new methods for meetings.
Jim, can you please forward to Camp and Neuman, somehow I lost their
addresses

Thanks Arnold

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin+ncits@jck.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:23 AM
To: Joseph a. Naujokas
Cc: NCITS_Chairs@lists.itic.org
Subject: Re: Internet tools for Standards Meetings
 

Please be advised that replying to this message goes to the sender. If you
wish to send a reply to all on the list, please respond with "Reply All".
_____________
Joe,

I don't use it, or any of its friends, but let me give you a
couple of quick thoughts, based on [X3]J1 experience.  As
background, J1 has been doing a significant fraction of its work
by email for a very long time: I'd guess we started by 83 if not
a bit earlier.  And I work with another standards body that has
done its primary work (and that of its predecessors) since the
early 70s and moderate what is believed to be the oldest
standards-related email list that is still in use.

But email leaves tracks and, in particular, it is easy to
maintain an archive that documents, should questions ever arise,
who said what and when and in which sequence.  Instant messaging
technologies and their relatives don't have that property:
conversations are more spontaneous, people can "speak at once",
threads and comments can get lost or delivered out of sequence
with many of them, and sequential/contextual logging is
difficult.  They also put a premium on everyone being in more or
less the same time zone and functional, where one of the larger
advantages of email was (and is) eliminating exactly that
restriction.  To my knowledge, none of the facilities you
mention make active moderation feasible either: although the
advantages of such moderation are mixed, I believe it should be
an option, especially if TC Chairs are to be held responsible
for the discussions and proceedings of their TCs.

So I'd recommend, for both procedural and operational/ group
dynamic reasons, not going there.

    john klensin
    Chair, J1
    (And, to clarify the obscure reference above, although for
identification only, Chair, Internet Architecture Board)

p.s. Although the camel is clearly most of the way into the tent
with the acceptance of NCTIS (and JTC1) of MS Word as a working
and document exchange format, I'd be much happier if TCs
confined themselves as much as possible to open and standardized
formats and tools, not things that require proprietary software
to operate and especially not those that require proprietary
software that runs on a very narrow choice of proprietary
platforms.   I believe that this stuff will sooner or later get
us into trouble when some materially concerned party claims to
have been disadvantaged by a standard in whose development he or
she could not participate effectively because of the proprietary
arrangements used.
 

--On Wednesday, 23 May, 2001 15:43 -0400 "Joseph a. Naujokas"
<JA_Naujokas@compuserve.com> wrote:

> Dear NCITS Chairs,
>
> I received the following from a colleague in international
> standards development.  I would appreciate it if you would
> kindly provide the benefit of any experience in using the
> tools described.
>
>  From:   "Steve Brunt", INTERNET:steve.brunt@physics.org
>> To:     "Joe Naujokas", JA_NAUJOKAS
>>
>> Date:   5/18/2001  3:32 AM
>>
>> RE:     Compuserve Instant Messenger
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Do you use the Compuserve Instant Messenger at all? It seems
>> to me that
> it
>> might be useful sometimes.
>>
>> I have been looking at the suitability of:
>>
>> -Instant Messenger (AOL, Netscape, Compuserve et al),
>> -MSN Messenger (MSN only?),
>> -PalTalk (Independent - conference rooms bookable on a
>> temporary or permanent basis)
>> -Microsoft Netmeeting
>>
>> fo holding informal meetings of small groups over the
>> Internet. Instant Messenger certainly works well one-to-one
>> but I assume it will 'feel' the much the same as a Compuserve
>> forum chat room with more than one person involved.
>>
>> Do you know if anybody in the US group uses any of these
>> things - or similar - for serious (e.g. standards) business?
>> I would be interested to learn from their experience.
>>
>> Steve
>> ==========================================
>> Eur Ing Steve Brunt CPhys CEng MInstP MIEE MIEEE
>> 30 Nicander Parade, Mayhill, SWANSEA, SA1 6TX UK
>> Email: steve.brunt@physics.org
>> Tel: +44 1792 649105
>> Mob: +44 7802 701440
>> Fax: +44 7092 047181
>
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> Joe Naujokas
> Chair ANSI NCITS B10
> Convenor ISO/IEC JTC1 SC17 WG1
> ICMA Standards Representative
> Principal
> Naujokas & Associates
> Tel +1 410 581 3537
> Fax +1 410 581 3538
>
> ________
> This mailing list may not be used for unlawful purposes. All
> postings should be relevant, but ITI accepts no responsibility
> for any posting and may terminate access to any subscriber
> violating any policies of the Association. Please review the
> NCITS Antitrust Guidelines at
> <http://www.ncits.org/natrust.htm>.
>
>

________
This mailing list may not be used for unlawful purposes. All postings
should be relevant, but ITI accepts no responsibility for any posting and
may terminate access to any subscriber violating any policies of the
Association. Please review the NCITS Antitrust Guidelines at
<http://www.ncits.org/natrust.htm>.