From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Sep 4 17:14:07 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h84FE71c016357 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:14:07 +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 inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h84FDvCp016349 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:14:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h84FE4o05180 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:14:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA10206 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:23:00 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3F575974.20205@rl.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:25:40 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2965) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD References: <200309022028.h82KSBRi093441@dkuug.dk> <200309022048.h82KmN99093632@dkuug.dk> <200309022208.h82M8GR5094362@dkuug.dk> <200309040920.h849KG23012908@dkuug.dk> <200309041506.h84F6LkN016242@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Richard Maine wrote: > 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. I agree. John.