Re: Motion P1788.1/M002.01
Yes, I agree the number should be 2.01.
Yes, if there are concerns, the process goes more smoothly if they are
brought forward during the discussion period.
George Corliss
On 3/18/16 3:00 PM, Michel Hack wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:12:05 +0000, Ned Nedialkov wrote:
>> I vote YES on motion P1788.1/M002.01
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 00:55:41 +0100, Nathalie Revol wrote
> (last ref listed above):
>>> as Motion P1788.1/M003.01 (as far as I can follow;-) has been moved
>>> by Ned Nedialkov and seconded by Hossam Fahmy, this motion is under
>>> consideration by the group: discussion period begins now and ends
>>> Sunday March 27.
> (a) We need to straighten out our numbering. I believe Ned is right;
> this is indeed M002.01 and not M003.01.
>
> (b) The voting period hasn't started yet -- though the discussion has
> been awfully quiet for a while now...
>
> Michel.
> ---Sent: 2016-03-18 19:47:27 UTC
>