(289) previous ~ index ~ next
To: Steve Lowe <steve@dragonsys.com>
From: "Charles L. Wayne" <clwayne@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
Subject: Re: Default evaluation conditions
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Steve,
I do not see what the problem is. Jon has accurately represented my views
(in favor of meaningful contrastive experiments), has stated that he would
like to have results by the 6th or 7th (to meet NIST's deadlines), but has
provided an acceptable option (scoring your own results).
I certainly do not consider "unable" to be insulting. If you prefer, read
it as "not reasonably able." Please enjoy the holidays.
- Charles
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Steve Lowe wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> In response to your points:
> > I don't want to move the deadline another week. We really need to tie
> > up this eval and get on with preparation for the meeting.
>
> Is it really so hard to run a second batch of scoring later in the
> month? The meeting isn't until the end of February. Remember, I only
> asked for an additional WEEK in my original message!
>
> > My understanding is that Charles would like to see as many official
> > scored results as possible. That way the official account of the
> > evaluation which will be published will be able to address all facets of
> > the evaluation. ..."
>
> If Charles wants more officially-scored submissions, why should the
> pressure be on the sites provide them earlier rather than on NIST to
> score them later?
>
> Also, it is not clear to me, and will not be to my supervisors, how
> important inclusion in the "official account" is. This means our
> bosses will apply pressure to get our submissions in by your deadline,
> no matter what alternatives you offer.
>
> Charles, are you on this mailing list? Can you comment?
>
> > If you are UNABLE to complete your contrastive runs by the 6th..."
> > (emphasis mine--SL)
>
> I would say "unable" is a poor, and insulting, choice of word. We can
> make the deadline if we have to, but you have yet to give me a
> compelling reason WHY we have to. No hard feelings, Jon, and I know
> scoring the evaluation is a difficult job, and we all appreciate the
> effort you put into it. But I really don't see why you get to
> make this determination unilaterally.
>
> Regards to all,
> Steve
>
>
>
(289) previous ~ index ~ next
Last updated Wed Feb 3 10:44:20 1999