From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Fri Dec  5 15:19:11 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id B3B72CA5FE7; Fri,  5 Dec 2008 15:19:11 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from oin.rl.ac.uk (oin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.200])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342A1CA5FE4
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri,  5 Dec 2008 15:19:10 +0100 (CET)
X-RAL-MFrom: <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
X-RAL-Connect: <jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]>
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202])
	by oin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB5EIXMs006749
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:18:33 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id mB5EIWWc007946;
	Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:18:32 GMT
Message-ID: <49393838.4020403@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:18:32 +0000
From: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060209 Fedora/1.7.12-1.1.2.legacy
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3735) [POSSIBLE SPAM] May WG5/J3 meeting]]
References: <20081204110125.12A37CA5FE4@www2.open-std.org> <4938279B.7080506@cray.com>
In-Reply-To: <4938279B.7080506@cray.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0 : 
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Bill Long wrote:
> 
> If it matters, the old dates are in the J3 meeting 185 minutes (which 
> are approved and publicly available) and are in the draft 186 minutes I 
> sent to Stan.  If we change the dates, then at least Stan should 
> "repair" the 186 minutes.

OK. See also the minutes of the Feb. WG5 meeting (N1715, 9.1, para 5) where WG5 
expressed a preference for Monday 0800 to Friday 1200 with no excursion.

>> In view of the way we worked to the dot of 12 noon on Friday in Tokyo, 
>> should we
>> do the same in Las Vegas?
>>   
> Not a problem for me.  But, people need to know far enough in advance to 
> schedule flights accordingly.

This is my current plan. That is, I think we need 4.5 days rather than 4 days. 
Please say if this would give you a serious difficulty.

John.