proposed way forward on property paths

Here is my proposed way forward:

a) The group discusses whether any of the Options 1), 3), 6), 7), 8) would be unacceptable within the group on Tue.

b) depending on how many options remain, we write a joint official response to the commenters WM-1, JP-4, and JB-10 listing the remaining options and asking them whether any of the remaining options would be unacceptable for them.

c) (optional) as part of the response mail mentioned in b), I'd suggest to set up a doodle with possible dates within the next two weeks and invite all three commenters to a joint call together with interested people from the group to resolve the issue once and for all.

----------------------------------------

Explaining  remarks:

My impression is that Options 2),4),5) are off the table with the votes 2 weeks ago. Option 1) might be still considered a fallback, if we reach no agreement otherwise shortly (depending on whether Paul sticks with his objections). This leaves options 1) and 3) in from the ones we voted already on, plus 6)-8).

I kept c) separate/optional, since I got the impression that involving the commenters directly was viewed with skepticism, but personally, I think that at this stage, involving them directly in a call is easier than having more discussions back and forth per email.

BTW, re-reading ACTION-600, retrospectively, I had misinterpreted it to only contact JP-4, but I have no clear picture on JB-10 and WM-1 as of yet, apologies for that misreading. Anyways, I think that contacting 3 commenters offlist and trying to coordinate their responses, as long as we are still not clear ourselves is not necessarily productive (that's why I proposed b)+c) above).

best regards,

Axel


--
Dr. Axel Polleres
Siemens AG Österreich
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies
CT T CEE

Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com