From: galvin@eit.com (James M. Galvin)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 01:43:34 +0800
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <Blaker@msn.com>
Subject: RE:
Message-ID: <v02140b1bad5a04853671@[153.37.6.9]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 8:16 PM 2/27/96, Blake Ramsdell wrote:
>> James M. Galvin said:
>> It's my impression that MOSS suffered from lack of representation at this
>> workshop.  I got that view from at least 6 different people, so I believe
>> it to be true.  That said, I think it's unfair to declare its demise.
>
>I agree with this impression -- I think that MOSS was not represented in any
>meaningful way.  The question that begs to be asked is:  why?

Your comment seems to suggest that the only way to meaningfully contribute
to a discussion of technologies is via face to face meetings.  While I
agree there is a certain expediency to face to face meetings, insofar as
we're talking about email shouldn't we be able to use the technology for
our deliberations?  I'm reminded of my participation in X.400 implementor
meetings where I derived great pleasure from the fact that you couldn't
communicate with most of the members via email at all, let alone X.400.

In response to your question, I don't think there is any one answer any
more than I think there is any one reason why PEM failed.  However, I don't
think the question is moot, since no decision has been made yet and at
least I haven't given up yet, although I know it's uphill from here.

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Galvin                                               galvin@eit.com
VeriFone/EIT, PO Box 220, Glenwood, MD 21738                 +1 410.795.6882