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]