Good intent and somewhat competent

[Nathan Soward]

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> At 10:06 AM +0900 1/20/97, David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Howard,
> >
> >If Kim posts rough estimates, what do you think the probability is
> >she'll be flamed with thermonuclear intensity should the actual
> >numbers deviate from those estimates?  My guess would be the number
> >approaches 1 as the actual numbers go over her estimates -- regardless
> >of whatever provisos she puts in or all capital letter requests you
> >might make to the peanut gallery.
>
> I understand that we have a significant number of fools who flame at the
> slightest hint of what they believe to be a conspiracy or an attempt to
> mislead.  On the other hand, I have always been uncomfortable in seeing
> budgetary numbers for ANYTHING without having a reasonable idea of the
> underlying process.   A certain number of people who flame MIGHT be willing
> to take a second look if they know some of the raw material from which the
> budgetary numbers are derived.  Also, many people simply are not aware of
> some functions that are needed in a real world operation.
>
> I've been involved in the setup of not-for-profit industry consortia,
> which, in the case of the Corporation for Open Systems, could also be read
> disasters.  I hope we can learn from mistakes.  If I don't understand the
> underlying functions in a proposal, just seeing budgetary numbers is of no
> help in understanding the process or how it might be improved.
>
> I've also spent time in national politics, and always remember the
> admonition that people really shouldn't watch how sausage, or their laws,
> actually are made.  Yet processes as well as budgets should be eligible for
> review.
>
> Kim,  I am obviously in no position to make other than a polite request for
> these estimates, and I will as politely quiet down if you do not want to
> provide them at this point.  I will argue that I believe they would be
> helpful at this point, and I strongly suggest that they be available as a
> supplement when the final budget is prepared.
>
> >
> >I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft
> >proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things
> >a whole lot easier in the end.  Of course, I'd also like to suggest
> >people stop getting into wars.  Both probably have equal likelihood
> >of coming true.
> >
> >Regards,
> >-drc
> >--------
> >>Kim,
> >>
> >>I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not
> >>trying to get you to commit on pieces.  If at all possible, I'd appreciate
> >>it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes
> >>your group to process a single allocation request.  I'm speaking of staff
> >>hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal
> >>review process.
> >>
> >>In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the
> >>work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is
> >>rejected or implemented.  TO ALL READERS:  I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE
> >>HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future.
> >>
> >>The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get
> >>rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time
> >>process.  RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter.
> >>
> >>Yes, I know you have to have lawyers.  When I did clinical things, we knew
> >>we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the
> >>first focus.
> >>
> >>Howard

Howard,

I could not agree more. This will be my last post until Kim has a chance
to get the new numbers out.  Also, Kim I understand what an enormous
undertaking this is. Thank you for caring.

Nathan