Mike Paivinen ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
...
: I was at that same IPROF meeting.  All the issues were aired.
: There wasn't consensus in the room among the SIGSYSMAN members as to what
: the ideal solution would be.  Several people thought HP had a resonable
: position to defend.  So, based on the input in that meeting, some decisions
: were changed and a new policy was drafted.  The most productive discussion
: at this point would be to identify the problems with the password process
: (as several posters have pointed out) and to try to get them fixed.  Why
: rehash the same issues that were raised at IPROF?  If the owners of this
: policy weren't swayed during IPROF (when they were fairly well blasted
: by the audience), I don't think there's much hope of them changing their
 
Minor correction: the "owners of this policy" weren't at IPROF.  Instead,
a very low-level woman (whose name I never got) was the sacrifical lamb
presenting the already prepared HP position ... nothing was changed, nothing
was drafted.  I remember specifically asking her, publically, if she had
any control over the matter, and if she could ensure that next time a
manager with authority over this issue could attend the meeting.
 
Her answer: I want to be your quarterback.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect she meant an AFC quarterback.  :)
 
--
Stan Sieler
[log in to unmask]