Re: I still need a second for John's paper Re: Any objections? Re: John's position paper simultaneously with Nate's
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:14:03 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Wolff_von_Gudenberg?=
> <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx, John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "stds-1788@xxxxxxxx" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: I still need a second for John's paper Re: Any objections? Re: John's position paper simultaneously with Nate's
>
> P-1788,
>
> Do I have a second for John's motion?
>
> Jürgen: I also agree with KISS, and I've been wondering
> about that a bit recently.
>
> Baker
>
> . . .
I will second John's motion. - Dan