On Tuesday 05 December 2006 20:48, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> My last comments on this ...
>
> Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except that some faceless, nameless, identity-less non-entity at
> > the upper levels of LPI has now decided to change that ...
> > OK, so I'm ticked off ...
> > But remember that almost no-one supports LPI for purely logical
> > reasons ...
>
> Of those various, allegedly non-existent "industry" influences, I'm
> sure at least some of those with the "six sisters" would strongly
> disagree with you.

I'm not familiar with the term "six sisters". But I'll gladly listen to 
them describing what they need, and I'm always open to being shown if I 
am incorrect.

> If you don't know who I mean, I'd have to 
> question if you attended any TAC and have worked with Matt or anyone
> else at LPI.

Yes I have worked with LPI closely on several projects, but always 
remotely as I do not live in North America. I was invited to this years 
TAC but could not attend for reasons of logistics and time constraints. 
I may not be in your league technically, and I do not contribute to LPI 
in the way you do, but like yourself, my commitment and contribution to 
LPI is not in doubt.

> > We do it because it's cool ...
>
> Could you _please_ stop responding on-behalf of _all_ of us?
> Especially for people like myself, professionally at odds with 97% of
> Linux professionals most of the time.  ;->

Then somehow I must be one of those 3%.

But if you feel I was in error by making a general statement that you 
disagree with, then I apologize to you for creating that effect. I was 
aiming for the 97%, knowing that I cannot appeal to everyone all the 
time

> First rule of standards development:
>   People _differ_ in what is important.
>
> Second rule of standards development:
>   Industry is what _makes_ products and _employs_ people.
>
> Seen far too many IEEE standards fly because they realized rules #1
> and #2 as well as tank because they didn't (especially #2).

OK, these are valid points and you obviously have expertise in this 
area, witness your address domain. But I don't see how it's germane to 
the overall thread which is not about the intent of the policy change, 
but it's implementation and how it affects LPI alumni.

alan
_______________________________________________
lpi-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss

Reply via email to