From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Sep 4 17:06:20 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h84F6KGE016228 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:06:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h84F4tCp016201 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:06:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:01:49 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.20.211]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:04:55 -0700 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 201) id 4F8E93576D; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:04:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <16215.21653.221644.899396@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:04:53 -0700 To: WG5 Subject: (SC22WG5.2964) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD In-Reply-To: <200309040920.h849KG23012908@dkuug.dk> References: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> <200309022048.h82KmN99093632@dkuug.dk> <200309022208.h82M8GR5094362@dkuug.dk> <200309040920.h849KG23012908@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk John Reid writes: > As Convener, let me comment that this is an FCD ballot, not a DIS > ballot. J3 could work on this at its next meeting and propose an edit in > the US ballot. Minor technical changes are allowed at this stage; > nothing of the magnitude of what we did last time, of course, but this > one looks like just the sort of thing that the ballot is intended to catch. > > Please don't come up with tons of such edits - that would put us back to > doing another FCD - but my understanding is that a few would be OK. Ok. But just to further clarify the clarification for dummies like me (actually, I think you are clear, but I want to elaborate on what I heard you say to make sure that others notice the distinction that I did...or just in case the distinction I thought I heard isn't there). I'm hearing you say that this might be appropriate as a country comment on the FCD. Those comments get considered and acted on by the full committee. But note that what we are doing this month is not the FCD vote. Proposed edits this month are expected to be pretty much unquestionable (partly because the whole committee won't be able to review them adequately). Thus, I'm hearing "save it for the country FCD vote (and there better not be very many of them)" instead of "save it for an interp", but still not something that the vetting subgroup should consider for right now. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain