Subject: IPP> Your IPP article

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:14:37 PDT

Evan,

I wasn't too happy with your angle in reporting about IPP.  You make it
sound like we had insurmountable problems which will prevent us from making
progress.

I have been involved in a series of international standardization projects
over the years, and can assure you that this "conflict" is no worse than a
number other ones I have run across. I am confident that we will find a
suitable compromise in this case as well.

Regards,

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:26:54 -0600

Evan,

I too share Carl-Uno's concerns about the "angle" of the article, especially
the implications of words such as "unravel".

As I said on the phone during our interview, I expect the standards process
(working group participation and discussion) to  yield a consensus decision
in a timely manner that results in the best possible standard for Internet
Printing.  With diligent participation, I have faith in the process.  As you
correctly represented, I have confidence that we can reach a consensus
decision in the time frame outlined in the schedule in the working group's
charter. 

As an example of the controversial nature of your article, you state
"A tentative deal worked out with the companies began to fall apart
when the participants divided into two factions -- one lead by
Microsoft, in Redmond, Wash., and the other by Novell, in Orem,
Utah, meeting participants said."

I made a strong statement in the discussion that you refer to  that a
successful standard, "simple" standard, should not have multiple levels of
conformance.  It is interesting that it can be construed as the "dividing of
companies into two factions."  Especially since 1) I represent my own
personal opinion and not that of my company, and 2) there were no idividuals
involved in that immediate phone discussion representing their personal
opinions who work for Microsoft.  Everyone has their own strong personal
positions, but the job is to learn to synergistically resolve issues.

A lot has happened since the original printing proposal by Xerox and Novell
and the associated Novell sponsored press release back in November.   There
has been a lot of good input and comment from many participants.  I am proud
to be a part of the working group and I am happy to take a very active role.
 In my own mind, it is now an open  working group initiative not a company
sponsored initiative.  I am actually very pleased (and surprised in some
ways) as to how far we have come and the many good agreements that have been
made to date.

Scott Isaacson

************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: [email-masked]
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************

>>> Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]> 06/05 1:14 PM >>>
Evan,

Regards,

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:34:40 PDT

>ways) as to how far we have come and the many good agreements that have been

Scott,

thanks for writing this letter to Evan.  I fully agree with it. I sent back
the following short reply to him yesterday:

Evan,

thanks for taking the time to write me, appreciated. You are right that
most of the article gave a correct and accurate description of where we are
standing, the main trouble I had was with the headline and the hints which
seemed to indicate that there was major trouble ahead, which I saw as an
exaggeration. 

Thanks,

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros