From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 8 Jul 93 18:55:44 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news. sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Weller) Subject: Ralph Crafts responds to Greg Aharonian(!) Message-ID: <1993Jul8.145544.12824@sei.cmu.edu> List-Id: Please note that I am forwarding this for Ralph Crafts, who lacks netnews access. If you wish to reply by e-mail, please use this address: 0003291513@mcimail.com Message Follows: ================================== Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:46 GMT From: "SS&T, Inc." <0003291513@mcimail.com> Ralph Crafts Subject: GAG (Greg Aharonian Gaffe) Since Greg's latest diatribe is just one in a never-ending sequence of insupportable, illogical conclusions, it is time to coin a suitable descriptor--GAG: Greg Aharonian Gaffe. His latest message, "A measure of Pentagon apathy to Ada," is just another example. Contrary to the 5JUL93 GAG, there are several excellent reasons (as opposed to excuses) why there were no flag-rank officers at the WAdaS conference: 1. None were invited, including the names listed in the GAG. 2. Many senior officials (probably most of them) were not aware of the event, since they did not receive promotional materials. In my meeting on Tuesday morning (of the conference) with Emmett Paige, I showed him a copy of the WAdaS agenda. He commented that he would have made plans to attend, if he had only known about it. 3. There were no sessions, papers, or panels that were of interest to people at that level. Generals, admirals, and senior executives should not, and will not, waste their time listening to presentations about object-oriented development, Ada 9X, reuse with Ada generics, and the like. 4. Even generals have to justify spending more than $300 to attend a conference, especially if they are only going for part of one day. These reasons are contrary to the erroneous assumptions/ conclusions in the 5JUL93 GAG, specifically: --the cost to attend WAdaS was/is not just $2.50 for the metro; rather, it exceeds $300, even for generals; --MILCOM stands for Military Communications Conference, which is a major event targeted specifically to the military. WAdaS, by comparison, does not focus at all on military issues. --With government airfare rates, the cost for a flag-rank officer to attend MILCOM, even from Washington, DC, is LESS THAN the cost of that same officer to attend WAdaS. All of the names listed in the GAG are MILCOM speakers, and they attend/speak for free. This is totally different from the GAG claim that "thousands of dollars" are spent on travel to Boston. It would also be useful for the GAG to note that MILCOM is sponsored in part by the AFCEA, which is the ARMED FORCES Communication and Electronics Association. As part of the event, there are several classified briefings conducted by the DoD. The AFCEA is probably the largest defense-oriented association, and it routinely invites and attracts the top officials of the DoD. WAdaS, and most other Ada events, do not. Contrary to claims of the GAG, the information it cited proved nothing except the vacuous nature of the claims it contained. Perhaps a more accurate focus and series of questions would have been: A. With a SIGAda membership of more than 4,000, why did the WAdaS draw only about 220 people? B. For a more pertinent measure of apathy, why not question the fact that only 658 ballots were sent in for the recent SIGAda elections, out of a membership of more than 4,000? C. If there is a desire to draw attendance from the military, why aren't there sessions scheduled that specifically pertain to military issues? D. In the WAdaS debate, DoD participation/sponsorship of Ada-related initiatives was deemed "the kiss of death." Should anyone be surprised that members of the DoD are not really interested in attending? Why should they? Would you? I usually would not bother responding to such pap. But, since some of the addressees of the GAG are people like Lloyd Mosemann and Chris Anderson, who are DoD employees whose support and influence are valued, I wanted them to know that the GAG does not speak for the Ada community. Of course, neither do I, but my track record for supporting Ada is hopefully not in question. What a waste of time! Ralph Crafts ======================= Message Ends -- -Comments above aren't neceessarily the opinion of the SEI, AJPO, or CAE-Link- David Weller | Have you hugged your DRAGOON lately? ----I'm the Ultimate International Masochist: I speak Ada AND Esperanto!-----