Roeland wrote:
> At 11:36 PM 12/17/98 , Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> >>
> >> At 12:18 PM 12/17/98 , Michael Sondow wrote:
> >
> >> >There won't be enough time to incorporate what that meeting produces
> >> >into the application. It's too late. The DNSO will be forced to accept
> >> >everything, without discussion and consensus, just because of the time
> >> >problem. This may well be why they put it off until the end of
> January.
> >> >The DNSO should not go along with this, IMHO.
> >>
>
There's no way we can avoid it.
> >> You are experiencing first-hand what many have dealt with over the
> years.
> >> You are now welcomed to the discussions, but the original work, warts
> and
> >> all, must be accepted because there is no time allowed for
> review.<grin>
>
I disagree.
I prefer to miss the first train, than to start with the wrong foot.
> >
> >Well, if that's the way it's going to be played then the answer is to go
> >and fight it out, word for word, at the meeting.
>
> That was also tried. It didn't work. What is not understood by all is,
> that
> this wasn't acceptable then and it isn't acceptable now. Those who stand
> by
> such a process are going to have to see it fail, yet again, before they
> get a clue. The problem is that the failure events are vastly
> out-numbering
> the success events and time *is* marching onwards. There is a certain,
> indeterminate, number of aborts that this whole process can sustain before
> the entire concept loses credibility, IMHO.
>
Roeland, I agree with you 100% if I take your post as an abstract
consideration.
OTOH, I believe that there's something you did not write, but that is there,
and that I disagree with.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that this is a well
orchestrated organization by some evil group that will put everybody now
face to the fait-accompli of the loss of time and need for accepting the
lesser damage of a flawed application vs. losing the train.
I cannot agree.
I believe that we have two genuinely conflicting interests: on one hand the
"technical" constituencies, that somehow agreed on some points, and that
were more or less ready to go to the next step, and the Trademark/Commercial
interests, that were not happy with the outcome so far.
What to do? The only reasonable thing (IMHO).
Back to the drawing board, for the next iteration.
> IMHO, most of understand that the goal is worth striving for.
> Unfortunately, not all of us understand that the process is part of the
> goal.
>
... and I believe that this (of going back to the drawing board) is the only
viable process.
Roberto