Re: I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal toresolveinfo model issues

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>]

I am very sorry to disappoint you Joel. The point of an f2f is to have
face-to-face meetings. Limited duration calls for specific and focused purposed
is a reasonable request. Keeping a long distance call going for 3 days is not
reasonable and there is no precedent or requirement that the host provide this
that I have seen.

If Intel would be kind enough to set up a bridge and call in to the single phone
line for 3 days then I would be OK with your proposal. However, I cannot justify
such telephone expense to my own management.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> Your response is very disappointing.  I can look into setting up a bridge
> that Intel could host for some of this two day agenda.  During those times
> that I can get a bridge established for, I would ask you to call into the
> bridge from that single phone line and use a speakerphone in the room so
> that all could share in the discussions.
>
> Scott, if this FTF is going to proceed, then please post a detailed agenda
> as soon as possible for the meetings so that I can schedule a bridge for the
> appropriate times.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 10:17 AM
> To: Munter, Joel D
> Cc: 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org '
> Subject: Re: I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal to
> resolveinfo model issues
>
> Joel,
>
> I looked into your request and I am sorry to say that our phone
> infrastructure
> will allow only 1 call to be made to the conference room. So it will not be
> possible to meet your need. Note that in other f2f meetings (recall TRP in
> Dallas) the single phone line was used to have some one call in if they were
> an
> active participant in a specific part of the meeting (e.g. when Igor called
> in
> during security discussion).
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> "Munter, Joel D" wrote:
>
> > reply:
> >
> > I will not attend in person but publically and humbly "beg" you to provide
> > voice connectivity for those of us who cannot or choose to not travel that
> > week.  I can participate in a significant amount of this time, just not
> FTF.
> >
> > I do not want to be in the position that i was in for the last few weeks
> > where decisions where made in Tokyo that I was not aware of because I did
> > not attend physically.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 5:06 PM
> > To: Nieman, Scott
> > Cc: 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org '
> > Subject: Re: I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal to
> > reso lveinfo model issues
> >
> > How is Dec 19-21 inclusive as dates for our f2f meeting? Are people OK
> with
> > these dates? I will look into Sun hosting the meeting at our Burlington MA
> > campus if the dates work out. IMHO the agenda should focus on finalizing
> the
> > info model spec and the registry services spec.
> >
> > Please indicate whether you will be able to attend.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> > "Nieman, Scott" wrote:
> >
> > > I am OK with that as long as it is after 12/18.  totally booked before
> > that.
> > >
> > > >> Len and I accomplished more alignment of our thoughts in 1 hour
> > > virtually working on the same screen than we
> > > had in all previous meetings combined. We are quite close. I believe we
> > > are due
> > > for a 2-3 day f2f. Scott is this possible in the next 2 weeks? I would
> > > be happy to host
> > > in in Burlington MA. How do folks feel about it.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh

--
Regards,
Farrukh