Mountain View Alliance

[jjg@xxxxxx (John J Grana)]

Peter/Glen,

We are pretty active with MVA. We are members and Ed Bizari (PTI's VP of 
Sales and Mkt) attends most all the events; I have done a few as well. I 
will discuss this with Ed and I believe we (PTI) can engage and keep CGL 
in front of MVA.

I agree with Peters observations. The MVA (aka Consortium of Consortiums) 
is pretty much dominated by HW centric folks. But, it would be good to 
keep engaged with them.

I will post another response next Tuesday.

Cheers
John Grana
jjg@xxxxxx




"Peter R. Badovinatz" <tabmowzo@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/05/2007 08:38 PM

To
"Seiler, Glenn" <glenn.seiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Amanda McPherson 
<amanda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject
Re: Mountain View Alliance







Seiler, Glenn wrote:
> Hey guys, now that we are starting to coalesce back into a team, I was
> wondering 1) if anyone was actively engaging with Mountain View Alliance
> on behalf of LF or CGLWG and/or 2) if no one is, do we want to?
> 

Glenn,
I had attended most MVA conf calls through the end of August, haven't 
been on since due to travel but am on mailing list.  However, I was only 
representing OCAF and didn't speak for LF.  MVA CEC planning is hot and 
heavy right now and if we want to inject LF/CGL content we need to 
decide ASAP.

However, from an attention-getting viewpoint, from my experience at MVA 
CEC earlier this year I didn't think we got much attention.  Most of the 
audience didn't seem to care much.  This is NOT because they dislike 
CGL, but because much of it was HW component people that don't care 
about any OS.  But if we could come up with something 'cheap' (or 
better, free as in beer) fine by me.

I'm not saying I want to be the LF/CGL rep to MVA, in fact, I'm trying 
to get myself off of it for OCAF (as it is Marketing and that isn't my 
primary focus.)

> This is exclusively a marketing and awareness exercise. So don't really
> need technical muscle for this.
> 
> As you may remember, I jumped in back at the beginning of the year and
> represented OSDL/LF in order to get the CGL 4.0 launch out. But after
> the merger and the discontinuance of the old CGLWG, I sort of quit
> engaging. I am not even sure I am really "authorized" any more to
> represent LF or CGLWG.
> 
> This may be an interesting discussion point for one of our next calls.
> They are starting to get the MVACEC wound up for next year, and they are
> still using an old LF logo that I'm pretty sure is not the current one.
> Now that we are getting whole again, we should consider re-engaging.
> 
> -glenn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier

-- 
Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat'
STG Telecommunications, Linux & Standards
preferred: tabmowzo@xxxxxxxxxx / alternate: wombat@xxxxxxxxxx
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.
_______________________________________________
Lf_carrier mailing list
Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lf_carrier/attachments/20071006/8d7cc455/attachment-0001.htm