Hi John, Now that I have thought about it a bit more, I suggest that you leave 1722 alone. If you are making a new proposal to make changes on top of the changes to 1722 it should be done with a different mantis item and not with 1722. 1722 can still go to the champions "as is" since the committee has already approved it. Any further changes made by the committee on additional mantis items that affect the same text as 1722 should have a note to the editor that those changes should be applied after the changes to 1722. Neil Neil Korpusik wrote On 07/18/07 17:02,: > Hi John, > > Can you offer an explanation on what the plan is for these mantis items? > > Mantis 1722 is currently on the agenda for the upcoming Champions meeting. > It is also in the resolved state. This email seems to indicate that the > proposal for 1722 should be removed from the agenda for the Champions > meeting. Once the Champions approve a proposal it then goes on to the > P1800 and then the editor. > > Mantis 1722 could be closed if it is being subsumed by another mantis > item. Let me know how you want us to proceed on this. > > > Neil > > > > > > Lisa Piper wrote On 07/18/07 10:02,: > >> <<1722-bind_clarifications_draft3a.pdf>> >> >>Attached is the combined 1722 and 1855 proposal. This will need a >>re-vote since additional changes were done. >> >>Lisa >> >> >>-- >>This message has been scanned for viruses and >>dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is >>believed to be clean. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Korpusik Tel: 408-276-6385 Frontend Technologies (FTAP) Fax: 408-276-5092 Sun Microsystems email: neil.korpusik@sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jul 18 17:43:31 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 18 2007 - 17:43:46 PDT