Re: Appeal of the recent DASC election process by Alex Zamfirescu

 Dear Darren: You are right when you state the following: I think that you
need to be very careful about allegations of intimidation when what you are
talking about is the automatic generation of subject lines by software. It
is difficult to prove that the intimidation occurred when it is standard
practice for some mail clients to automatically flag mails as being spam. The
recent DASC occurrence is provable, not an automatic one.

You can tell that, by looking at the first message where *{Spam?}* was added


to the subject line. It is at stored at
http://www.dasc.org/dasc-list/hm/1572.html

You can see that this message was in reply to one which reached the inbox

without the any additional *{Spam?}*

--- original message ---
From: stephen_bailey@mentor.com
*Subject: Re: Definition of "IP"*
Date: 14th January 2008
Time: 6:41:17 pm

Therefore, the *additions on the subject lines was either deliberately done
by the issuer of the new message*, or it was added by the DASC reflector.
This last hipotesis is very improbable because the issuer's e-mail address
could not trigger such addition, but if it is true we have a real problem,
called "automatic discouraging of open discussion." The fact that the
intimidation is automatic does not make it less intimidating. The only
question remaining is, as you say "Who is doing it?" The simplest way to
findout if anything was automatic would be to kindly ask the issuer of the
message.

Thank you very much for taking the time to analyze the messages and for
recommendation to try to make discussion less personal.

Enough "inforensic" investigations.

Kind regards,

Alex Zamfirescu


On 2/14/08, darren.galpin@infineon.com <darren.galpin@infineon.com> wrote:
>
>
>  > Alex is *given the right to publish a white paper* about his view of
> the status of the
>  > DASC and his view of its bright future, without any intimidation (like
> adding {SPAM?} to the subject of messages). Such white paper should be
> publicised
>  > over the DASC reflector and it should become an official DASC
> document by circulation as attachment to DASC minutes in its entirety. Alex
> will comply   with
>  > what can be legally discussed under IEEE DASC, and will retain the
> copyright of the material. No other restrictions are imposed on Alex to
> comply with this condition.
>
> I think that you need to be very careful about alegations of intimidation
> when what you are talking about is the automatic generation of subject lines
> by software. It is difficult to prove that the intimidation occurred when it
> is standard practice for some mail clients to automatically flag mails as
> being spam. Given this fact, who was in fact doing the intimidation?
>
> I think that Alex has some valid points which need to be addressed by the
> committee and the rules updated to reflect this. However, I also think that
> the language which has been used is sometimes emotive and hides the real
> issues. I distil Alex's e-mail down to the following points:
>
>
> If an election is protested, is it valid for the newly elected members to
> set up a committee to investigate the protest, and is it valid for them to
> partake in the committee?
>
>    - If the newly elected members partake in the investigation, there
>    could be a conceived conflict of interest.
>    - Should the outgoing officials conduct the investigation - but what
>    if the the same officials are being elected?
>    - Should there be a pre-set committee or appointed person who
>    conducts any investigations?
>
>
> Please stick to the points of discussion and avoid making the discussion
> personal - it distracts from what is being discussed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Darren
>



-- 
Alex Zamfirescu
650-814-7514
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com
=========
This communication, and its attachments, may contain
privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or
shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying or  distribution of this communication, or
the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Interception of e-mail is a crime under the  Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply
e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
=========

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.