Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: NO

To: Ian McIntosh <ianm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: NO
From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:57:44 +0100
Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OFDBAD42C5.13FAD82D-ON85257734.004E3DFB-85257734.0050B2D2@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
References: <4BEC69A2.7090200@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <OFDBAD42C5.13FAD82D-ON85257734.004E3DFB-85257734.0050B2D2@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx

Ian

We are voting on 6.1 and 6.2.

Your comments relate to 6.3 which is about interchange format and is not the subject of this motion. Yes, your points are serious and worth discussing, and it is time we had this discussion, but that is for another day.

John

References:
- Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: up for vote
  - From: Ralph Baker Kearfott
- Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: NO
  - From: Ian McIntosh

Prev by Date: P1788/M0014.01 YES
Next by Date: Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: NO
Previous by thread: Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: NO
Next by thread: Motion P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2_of_document: YES
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread