From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Dec  6 10:53:27 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 DCEE5C178E4; Mon,  6 Dec 2010 10:53:27 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from gloin.rl.ac.uk (gloin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.201])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54899C178E3
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon,  6 Dec 2010 10:53:26 +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 gloin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oB69qmgn013584;
	Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:53:11 GMT
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24138560D5;
	Mon,  6 Dec 2010 09:52:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <4CFCB26F.7050409@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:52:47 +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:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc10 SeaMonkey/1.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: WG5 informal ballot re Interop. TR
References: <20101108175805.5B97EC178E5@www2.open-std.org> <EC16D124-74CC-4CB2-9DFC-EC4B0FA0BFC2@bcs.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EC16D124-74CC-4CB2-9DFC-EC4B0FA0BFC2@bcs.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.399 : ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 130.246.135.201
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

David Muxworthy wrote:
> Revised vote:
> 
>> 1. Is the above revised schedule acceptable?
> 
> Yes but it is extremely optimistic.  It depends (a) on all the UTIs 
> being resolved at the February J3 meeting, 

We have two months before the meeting to work on the UTIs, so this should not be 
a problem. I am more concerned about major issues being raised at the last 
minute, which is why I have asked for this ballot.

 > (b) the revised document being distributed immediately afterwards, and

This is not a problem since we have the freedom to make it a 2-, 3-month ballot.

(c) WG5 then finding no faults in it.

This is not necessary, but of course huge changes are not acceptable.

>>  2. Do you have any comments on N1838?
> 
> No.

May I remind everyone that the ballot has 24 hours to run? If you have 
objections, please say now so that they can be addressed now rather than in 
haste just before the meeting.

Best wishes,

John.