| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
P-1788, Vincent has voted "no" on the recirculation, and has posted two comments he has classified as "technical." Technical comments, if we agree they are "technical" and not "editorial," require an additional recirculation, provided they deal with parts of the document that were changed. (This does not apply to parts of the document that were not changed, but were subsequently voted upon.) We do not have time for a recirculation before the April 24 deadline for Sponsor submission to REVCOM. Thus, if we need a recirculation, our one remaining chance will be to resolve these issues before the deadline for the September meeting of REVCOM. Otherwise, we will have missed the boat. I have attached an *.xls (MS-Word compatible) spreadsheet with Vincent's comments. My questions to you are: 1. Are the "technical" comments really technical, or just "editorial"? 2. Do the comments deal with portions of the text that were changed between the initial Sponsor Ballot and the recirculation? Vincent: May I call or Skype you? Baker -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax) (337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home) URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street) Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
recirculation-comment-resolution.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet