Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] New Google Group forming only for SEI-Authorized/Certified Individuals (& Candidates and SEI Staff)

Expand Messages
  • Hillel Glazer
    Hello Rob, I had a role to play in the misunderstandings as well, and for that I am again sorry. Email is a tricky medium in which to have dialogue . I m
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Rob,

      I had a role to play in the misunderstandings as well, and for that I am
      again sorry.

      Email is a tricky medium in which to have "dialogue". I'm guilty of plenty
      of misunderstandings, so I'm pleased that we now understand each other.

      All the best,

      --
      Cheers!
      -->>> Hillel
      --
      Hillel Glazer, Principal & CEO
      Entinex, Inc., The Technology Strategy Company
      www.entinex.com | www.AgileCMMI.com | www.CMMIFAQ.info
      If this is urgent please use: https://awayfind.com/entinex
      O-

      On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Rob Leinen <rob.leinen@...> wrote:

      > Hillel,
      >
      > I apologize if my response appeared to be a personal attacked on
      > you. That wasn't my intent but I can see how it would be taken that
      > way. I have no reason to doubt you word and accept your explanation
      > of you true intent with this new group, and apologize for my
      > misunderstanding (and besides if that is not the case I'm sure it
      > will become very apparent rather quickly (;> ). None the less I will
      > not bring the subject up again.
      >
      > Respectfully,
      > Rob L.
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ralf Kneuper
      ... Hash: SHA1 Hi, These discussions about whether SEI-authorized individuals need such a separate discussion group show exactly why we do need this group. A
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        Hi,

        These discussions about whether SEI-authorized individuals need such a
        separate discussion group show exactly why we do need this group.
        A lot of time has been spent (wasted?) on just explaining what the
        issues are that specifically concern SEI-authorized individuals, and
        several people who do not have that qualification have chipped in with
        insults instead.

        For the same reasons, some years ago we have set up a similar group of
        SEI-authorized individuals which is a bit more relaxed in allowing
        candidates as well, but more restrictive in only admitting
        German-speaking individuals. This group is not an email discussion group
        but meets regularly, currently about once a quarter. As a lead appraiser
        and SEI partner, I find it very helpful to be able to discuss the issues
        listed for the new Google group with people on the same level facing
        the same kind of problems. I hope and expect that this will be the case
        for the new group as well.

        Best regards
        Ralf

        Jeff Dalton - Broadsword schrieb:
        > Rob,
        >
        >
        >
        > You and I have had many discussions over the years - all of them positive -
        > and I'm not clear why you're taking such an insulting tone with me now.
        > You've chosen to interpret the intent of his message as exclusionary. My
        > interpretation of the words you have quoted were that he meant items that
        > were specific to "the business of being an LA" - which I re-assert is not
        > any your business. I understand you don't like that, and I know your
        > frustrated because you've been quite vocal on this board about your employer
        > not agreeing to become a partner and support your quest to become an LA, but
        > as I've said in the past, you can remedy that if you choose to.
        >
        >
        >
        > I'm not going to pick apart every word Hillel wrote as you seem to have -
        > but I know the man enough to know that the last thing he would consider is
        > doing this for exclusionary reasons. He's also been a major contributor to
        > this board, especially as my comrade in the agile space, and I know I can
        > call "a duck a duck" and support the important part of his message. Why
        > pick on one sentence when the rest of the message is so clear?
        >
        >
        >
        > As to your Groucho quote - it may appear clever but in this context it's
        > absurd and a weak diversion from the real point. You belong to the
        > "Deloitte" club, and that club does MANY things in private. That's none of
        > my business. If you do ever take the plunge, you'll want to have close
        > relationships with your peers in a forum you can discuss the business of
        > your profession.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Warm Regards,
        >
        >
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        >
        >
        > Jeff Dalton, President and CEO
        >
        > Broadsword
        >
        > SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, CMMI Instructor, SCAMPI Team Leader Observer
        >
        >
        >
        > 248.341.3367 (office)
        >
        > 248.709.4775 (cell)
        >
        > 248.341.3672 (fax)
        >
        >
        >
        > broadswordlogo.tif
        >
        >
        >
        > Visit our website at http://www.broadswordsolutions.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Visit Jeff's blog at: http://www.asktheCMMIAppraiser.com
        > <http://asktheCMMIAppraiser.blogspot.com>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > From: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of GMAIL - Rob
        > Leinen
        > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:04 PM
        > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: [ANN] New Google Group forming
        > only for SEI-Authorized/Certified Individuals (& Candidates and SEI Staff)
        >
        >
        >
        > Jeff,
        >
        > If the LA business related items that you pointed to were the only items
        > Hillel had stated were the purpose of this new discussion group, I would
        > have left it at that. But that's not what the original email stated. To
        > cut and paste exactly:
        >
        > " Topics would include (but not be limited to) issues, techniques
        > matters pertaining to teaching/instructing, appraising, consulting,
        > implementing, interpreting, coaching, mentoring and guiding all in the
        > realm of
        > SEI wares, products and technologies"
        >
        > "In fact,
        > topics from the CMMI Process Improvement Yahoo!Group could find themselves
        > brought over to this group for discussion, then returned to the
        > Yahoo!Group with
        > a general consensus response -- that may even include several points
        > of view! :-) "
        >
        > Topic that are none of my business, Hmmmmmm???? Seems like a number of
        > topics regularly discussed on this board???? If it is all the same to
        > you I call a duck a duck and leave it at that. Personally, when the day
        > comes that I do cross the final hurdles to achieving my credentials, it's
        > doubtful that my opinion will be any different; as with Groucho Marx, I
        > wouldn't want to be part of an exclusive club that would have me as a
        > member.
        >
        > Rob L.
        >
        > From: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com>
        > [mailto:cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
        > Dalton
        > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:02 AM
        > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: [ANN] New Google Group forming
        > only for SEI-Authorized/Certified Individuals (& Candidates and SEI Staff)
        >
        > Rob and Manju,
        >
        > As one of the folks that suggested to Hillel that we do this, let me at
        > least shoulder some of the weight of your concerns so that my friend Hillel
        > isn't standing alone!
        >
        > I don't think anyone ever suggested, nor intended, to leave this group - as
        > a matter of fact a room full of only Lead Appraisers can be quite boring! I
        > remember a party once at SEPG for authorized LA's and Instructors with a
        > country rock band in Nashville. We all just stood around staring at the
        > floor (Pat wouldn't dance with me!!).
        >
        > Offering advice is something I like to do, and I don't think I'll be giving
        > much of it to authorized indivuduals on the other group.
        >
        > If you think we're going to have our own group to argue about the meaning of
        > GP2.8 in an Agile environment (for instance), your incorrect. Why would we
        > want, or need, to do this? I mean, we're geeks, but we're not that bad!
        >
        > No, I don't think any of us would leave this group - I, for one, would
        > suffer withdrawals if I couldn't spar with Orhan at least once a week!
        >
        > The new group was suggested (at least by me) after a long thread of emails
        > between a number of CMMI Instructors about contractual issues related to our
        > Partner agreement with the SEI.
        >
        > We decided we wanted a place to have THOSE types of discussisons which are,
        > to be blunt, none of your business.
        >
        > If you'd like them to be your business, perhapscould consider taking the
        > steps (and risk, cost, and effort) to become authorized/certified and a
        > partner.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        > Manju K B <manju.ado@... <mailto:manju.ado%40gmail.com>
        > <mailto:manju.ado%40gmail.com> > wrote:
        > Hello Hillel,
        >
        > Thank you for the detail explanation why the group is desired.
        >
        > But as Rob even I feel that if major people of this group involved in the
        > new group and that makes them impossible to answers our queries, then that
        > will be great loss to starting kids like me.
        >
        > This is a risk I am talking about.
        >
        > Thanks and Regards,
        >
        > Manju
        >
        > On 8/29/08, Hillel Glazer <agilecmmi@...
        > <mailto:agilecmmi%40gmail.com>
        > <mailto:agilecmmi%40gmail.com> > wrote:
        >> Rob,
        >>
        >> That's not the point and certainly not the intent. I'm sorry you feel that
        >> way. I, for one (and I know many others who'd agree), certainly don't
        >> believe that you're not "worthy". That sort of idea is both a very
        >> insulting and counter-productive assertion to make about me or any other
        >> authorized individual. If any experience of yours with an authorized
        >> individual has made you feel that way, I would strongly suggest you
        > contact
        >> the SEI about it (customer-relations@...
        > <mailto:customer-relations%40sei.cmu.edu>
        > <mailto:customer-relations%40sei.cmu.edu>
        > <customer-relations%40sei.cmu.edu>).
        >> The SEI hasn't always
        >> been great about dealing with these matters but I know today they are very
        >> interested in hearing about this sort of feedback.
        >>
        >> The new list is not meant to discuss "process improvement" like the Yahoo
        >> list.
        >>
        >> Why would the vast majority of people on the Yahoo list care about
        >> discussing licensing terms and conditions? Or, SEI issues, or
        >> events/meetings that *only *happen for authorized individuals (yes, there
        >> are many of them), or ethical/compliance issues that are raised elsewhere,
        >> or surveys that only apply to authorized individuals, or technical aspects
        >> of properly phrasing the description of the OU or its FARs that *only
        >> *involve
        >> the person whose signature is going on the ADS?
        >>
        >> Since you are so involved on the Yahoo list, you can imagine that these
        >> sorts of discussion would easily get bogged down, taken off track or
        >> misunderstood by people who are still learning to spell "process".... This
        >> happens a lot on model discussions already, let alone on those discussions
        >> that are more advanced and meant for just those who are shouldering the
        >> responsibilities of our license agreements and authorizations.
        >>
        >> As you've no doubt witnessed, there are frequent questions that go out
        >> *from
        >> *appraisers and/or instructors *to* appraisers and/or instructors that are
        >> being chimed-in on by non-appraisers and non-instructors. And, you've seen
        >> that these voices are very often (but not always) distractions to the
        > focus
        >> attempting to be made.
        >>
        >> Not to mention that the types of discussion on the new list would fill up
        >> inboxes of those people who could care less. Why should we bother them
        > with
        >> our business and technical discussions that assume everyone in the
        >> conversation comes to the discussion with an expected minimum level of
        >> understanding and experience that not everyone on the Yahoo list can be
        >> expected to have? And, not everyone on the new list wants to deal with
        > what
        >> goes on and the volume of posts on the Yahoo list.
        >>
        >> Another point is that while the Yahoo list hasn't limited itself to CMMI
        >> only, the new list is quite specificlly *not* limited to those authorized
        >> only in CMMI. There are several other lesser-known designations for other
        >> technologies and other ways of being affiliated with SEI that would come
        > up
        >> and would not be appropriate for the Yahoo group.
        >>
        >> And, my last point goes directly to the heart of the matter. There's far
        >> more going on behind the scenes than just having authority "by virtue of
        >> ...
        >> having a sheet of paper" that those who do have the "sheet of paper" know
        >> about and must deal with and are contractually bound to adhere to than
        >> those
        >> without the "sheet of paper" know about and/or care about. And *that's
        >> exactly* the reason and need for the new list.
        >>
        >> While I would also like to include previously authorized people who have
        >> dropped their authorizations (let's call them "honorably discharged") I
        >> have
        >> no way of verifying their prior authorization. So that's a limitation, as
        >> I'm also learning another limitation is the ability to verify candidates
        >> for
        >> authorization.
        >>
        >> I hope this more complete explanation puts you at ease for why this list
        > is
        >> desired.
        >> --
        >> Cheers!
        >> -->>> Hillel
        >> --
        >> Hillel Glazer, Principal & CEO
        >> Entinex, Inc., The Technology Strategy Company
        >> www.entinex.com | www.AgileCMMI.com <http://www.agilecmmi.com/> |
        >> www.CMMIFAQ.info <http://www.cmmifaq.info/>
        >> If this is urgent please use: https://awayfind.com/entinex
        >> O-
        >>
        >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Rob Leinen <rob.leinen@...
        > <mailto:rob.leinen%40gmail.com>
        > <mailto:rob.leinen%40gmail.com> <rob.leinen%40gmail.com>>
        >> wrote:
        >>
        >>> Nice, an exclusive club that takes away the lion's share of expertise
        >>> from this site, and cut outs out the rest of us because, by virtue of
        >>> not having a sheet of paper, we're not worthy.
        >>>
        >>> I think we could all learn from the expertise and topics that you
        >>> have otherwise identified as only being important to the chosen few,
        >>> particularly those of us that have the knowledge and skills but are
        >>> not yet aligned with a SEI partner where we can take that next step.
        >>>
        >>> But that is just my opinion.
        >>>
        >>> Regards,
        >>> Rob L.
        >>>
        >>> --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com>,
        >> "Hillel Glazer"
        >>> <agilecmmi@...> wrote:
        >>>> Greetings!
        >>>>
        >>>> If you are an SEI Authorized/Certified individual (any technology),
        >>> a
        >>>> candidate to become authorized/certified, or SEI Staff, you are
        >>> invited to
        >>>> join a group just for you.
        >>>>
        >>>> "SEI Authorized" is a Google group ONLY open to people who are
        >>>> Authorized/Certified (or candidates to be) or SEI Staff.
        >>>>
        >>>> The purpose of the group is to facilitate discussion among us about
        >>> matters
        >>>> that are specific/unique to our work, taking advantage of the
        >>> breadth of
        >>>> experience and knowledge we all contribute.
        >>>>
        >>>> Topics would include (but not be limited to) issues, techniques and
        >>> matters
        >>>> pertaining to teaching/instructing, appraising, consulting,
        >>> implementing,
        >>>> interpreting, coaching, mentoring and guiding all in the realm of
        >>> SEI wares,
        >>>> products and technologies.
        >>>>
        >>>> We would also be able to discuss business matters like teaming,
        >>> contracts,
        >>>> marketing and advertising, being an SEI Partner, and
        >>> recommendations for
        >>>> services and products.
        >>>>
        >>>> These are topic ideas that may involve discussion either
        >>> inappropriate or
        >>>> irrelevant to a broader process improvement audience. In fact,
        >>> topics from
        >>>> the CMMI Process Improvement Yahoo!Group could find themselves
        >>> brought over
        >>>> to this group for discussion, then returned to the Yahoo!Group with
        >>> a
        >>>> general consensus response -- that may even include several points
        >>> of
        >>>> view! :-)
        >>>>
        >>>> All subscription requests will be compared to a current list of
        >>> authorized
        >>>> personnel. If we can't decipher your name from the email address
        >>> you use to
        >>>> subscribe, we may contact you to get your name so that we can
        >>> compare it to
        >>>> our list.
        >>>>
        >>>> If you are, or know of, SEI-Authorized (etc.) people who would
        >>> benefit from
        >>>> being a member of this new group, please forward them this message.
        >>>>
        >>>> Go here to sign up:
        >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/*sei-
        >>> authorized*<http://groups.google.com/group/sei-authorized>
        >>>> Thanks and see you @ SEI-Authorized@...
        > <mailto:SEI-Authorized%40googlegroups.com>
        > <mailto:SEI-Authorized%40googlegroups.com>
        > <SEI-Authorized%40googlegroups.com>
        >> !
        >>>> --
        >>>> Cheers!
        >>>> -->>> Hillel
        >>>> --
        >>>> Hillel Glazer, Principal & CEO
        >>>> Entinex, Inc., The Technology Strategy Company
        >>>> www.entinex.com | www.AgileCMMI.com <http://www.agilecmmi.com/> |
        >> www.CMMIFAQ.info <http://www.cmmifaq.info/>
        >>>> O-
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >

        - --

        Dr. Ralf Kneuper
        Beratung fuer Softwarequalitaetsmanagement und Prozessverbesserung
        SEI-authorized CMMI (SCAMPI) Lead Appraiser
        iNTACS-certified ISO/IEC 15504 Principal Assessor

        Philipp-Roeth-Weg 14 ralf@...
        D-64295 Darmstadt www.kneuper.de
        Germany
        Tel. +49-(0)173-3432005

        PGP Public Key and Fingerprint: see www.kneuper.de/Kontakt/pgp-key.html
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
        Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

        iD8DBQFIu5NDSNsa+c/yPgMRAjGJAJoDLYeEAvMBP1LtITXj5IJo1leEyACeP9VB
        efj/xAwtjMR+YfTKJZnE3t4=
        =kMfw
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      • Joe Pacheco
        Bravo!!!   All s well that ends well !!!   Joe ... From: Hillel Glazer Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] New Google Group
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Bravo!!!
           
          "All's well that ends well"!!!
           
          Joe


          --- On Sun, 8/31/08, Hillel Glazer <agilecmmi@...> wrote:

          From: Hillel Glazer <agilecmmi@...>
          Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] New Google Group forming only for SEI-Authorized/Certified Individuals (& Candidates and SEI Staff)
          To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 11:55 PM






          Hello Rob,

          I had a role to play in the misunderstandings as well, and for that I am
          again sorry.

          Email is a tricky medium in which to have "dialogue". I'm guilty of plenty
          of misunderstandings, so I'm pleased that we now understand each other.

          All the best,

          --
          Cheers!
          -->>> Hillel
          --
          Hillel Glazer, Principal & CEO
          Entinex, Inc., The Technology Strategy Company
          www.entinex. com | www.AgileCMMI. com | www.CMMIFAQ. info
          If this is urgent please use: https://awayfind. com/entinex
          O-

          On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Rob Leinen <rob.leinen@gmail. com> wrote:

          > Hillel,
          >
          > I apologize if my response appeared to be a personal attacked on
          > you. That wasn't my intent but I can see how it would be taken that
          > way. I have no reason to doubt you word and accept your explanation
          > of you true intent with this new group, and apologize for my
          > misunderstanding (and besides if that is not the case I'm sure it
          > will become very apparent rather quickly (;> ). None the less I will
          > not bring the subject up again.
          >
          > Respectfully,
          > Rob L.
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.