From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Feb 10 13:46:28 2010
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id A4434C3BA20; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:46:28 +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 252EDC3BA1A
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:46:27 +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 o1ACkIX2019863;
	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:46:18 GMT
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6344A560E2;
	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:46:18 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <4B72AA9A.5020704@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:46:18 +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:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090108 Fedora/1.1.14-4.fc10 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Responding to the FCD ballot
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.9 : BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

WG5,

In collaboration with Bill Long, who will be chairing J3 in the absence of Dan 
Nagle, I have been considered how to structure the discussion of the ballot 
comments (N1798 and N1802). We don't need to decide finally until we get to this 
topic on Monday, but my thoughts are that in the first instance only these need 
discussion in plenary:
     GB-1, GB-2, GB-3, GB-4, US-6, GB-6, CA-01, GB-14, CA-04, CA-03, CA-02.
The last four are closely related, see 10-113, so I hope we can discuss these 
together.

Each of the other comments seems to be sufficiently minor and non-controversial 
that it can be sent straight to the relevant subgroup for detailed review.

The proposed edits are also in J3 papers 101-104 and 107-120. The intention is 
that these papers or their revisions will be approved by WG5 and provide the 
Editor with definite authority for making the changes when preparing the FDIS.

Cheers,

John.