From Keith.Bierman@Eng.Sun.COM  Fri Jan 12 01:09:16 1996
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25088 for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 12 Jan 1996 01:09:12 +0100
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM by mercury.Sun.COM (Sun.COM)
	id QAA25708; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:08:40 -0800
Received: from chiba.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (5.x/SMI-5.3)
	id AA28596; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:08:38 -0800
Received: by chiba.eng.sun.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA27372; Thu, 11 Jan 96 16:08:35 PST
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 16:08:35 PST
From: Keith.Bierman@Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman-khb@chiba.eng.sun.com::SunPro)
Message-Id: <9601120008.AA27372@chiba.eng.sun.com>
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: x3j3 minutes comments


It is rather unfortunate that even ftping the minutes couldn't happen
before the cutoff date for the upcoming meeting. I think we still have
a major problem with timeliness.

The minutes are *much* improved over the last meetings minutes. 

I have not yet studied them carefully. However I am puzzled about the
first straw vote on page 9 .. 

	IEEE in front of almost everything  ! OK
	IEEE in front gone almost always    ! huh?

It is quite possible we really said something like that ... but what did we
mean? I thought the question was should the procedures be of the form:

	IEEE_* 
or
	*

That is should all the procedures be prefaced by IEEE or shouldn't
they be. If so, wasn't it phrased as YES, NO, UNDECIDED?

It may very well be moot, as it was only advice to the subgroup, and I
believe John has pretty much tied up the report (at least I liked it
when I last looked at it). 

I was a little surprised that my postscript copy reads
"d:\x3j3\95-314.ASC". I assume this refers to the location on a
particular PC and refered to the ASC version ... neither of which
means much to my files. However, it is quite small and perhaps it is
too much of a nit to trouble ourselves over.

In a similar vein, did I miss something, or were the first two pages
essentially blank?