Text 1422, 97 rader
Skriven 2008-03-24 17:43:54 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1419 av Carol Shenkenberger (360.ftsc_pub)
Ärende: Nomination
==================
Hello Carol,

On Monday March 24 2008 11:52, you wrote to me:

 >>  CS> No, it was there before.
 >>
 >> It was during your reign as ZC6 that you promoted it as a standard.

 CS> Z6 had already decided on it before I became Z6.

But *you* promoted it as a general standard.

 >> It is however important that the FTSC acts as a team as well.
 >> Individual FTS members should not go on their own and promote
 >> standards to the ZC's that go against agreed upon and documented
 >> FTSC standards.

 CS> It was a proposed change.  Anyone can write one.  Being a member of
 CS> the FTSC doesnt take away the right to write a proposed new standard.

Right. And then the proper thing to do for an FTSC member is
_to_submit_it_as_an_FTSC_proposal_.

 >> You did not file your proposed standard as a formal FTSC proposal,
 >> you went the ZCC instead. That clearly indicates you were acting
 >> with you ZC hat on.

 CS> I never filed anything, just worded a proposal I never submitted but
 CS> got some feedback on from several places, ZCC among them.

Right. You acted as a ZC, not as an FTSC member. Promoting something that
conflicts with documented FSTC standards.

 >> You may not perceive that as a conflict of interest, but I did and
 >> it is not needed that all parties involved agree on the existance of
 >> a conflict for it exist.

 CS> It isnt.

Yes it is. There was a conflict of interest.

 CS>  Anyone, even a *C can write a proposal.

And submit it to the FTSC. And then if there is a conflict with existing
standards it will be discussed and acted upon.

 CS> Certainly a *C can draft something and tinker with it then drop it.
 CS> There was no reason to submit it to the FTSC, as there was
 CS> insufficient ZC interest to make it globally applicable.

Bottom line: you bypassed the FTSC and promoted a standard that conflicts with
existing documented FTSC standards. You should not have done that as an FTSC
member.

 >>  CS> You do not like that standard and this is fine.  It was never more
 >>  CS> than a stopgap until the newer makenl features were in place.
 >>  CS> There were too many different flavors of 000- running around

 >> Carol you are still talking like a *C. That is fine, and I could
 >> even give some merits to your arguments, but putting stopgaps in place
 >> in NOT the job of th FSTC.

 CS> So, you say a member of the FTSC cant make a proposal?

Where did I say that? See above.

 >> Common or not, it is in violation of documented FTSC standards.

 CS> Well, thats how it goes then.  All I know is as a Z1 NC, I have
 CS> several ION's in my segment (some of which I will be clearing out,
 CS> seem gone) and Z1's 'policy' is I have to use 000-0-0-0-0 for them
 CS> unless they want me to shift them to PVT status.

A clear case of conflict of hats then. You may feel obliged to uphold the Z1's
policy as a Z1 *C, but as an FTSC member your loyalty should be with the team
and you should give the good example and uphold the documented standards.
000-0-0-0-0 conflicts with FTSC standards, they should be listed as Pvt,
-Unpublished-.

You can not serve two masters.

You may not see the conflict of interest, but I do...

 >> But aren't you forgetting something? Get that old ZC hat out of the
 >> closet, brush off the dust and put it on just for a moment. Imagine
 >> what happens if Janis gave the go ahead....

 CS> We'd swap on schedule as directed.  I'd have to wait for Michael Luko
 CS> to give me the go-ahead when he said he's ready.  He may be already
 CS> for all I know.

You are still missing it...

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)