- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:25:10 -0700
- To: "Weidenbrueck, Dieter" <dweidenbrueck@ptc.com>, "Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>,"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
It works better for me also. Postponed. I'm open to searching for a new regular time/date. But for next week, let's try to work around the normal Thursday slot and see if a small adjustment would let Chris attend. -Lofton. At 08:41 AM 2/15/2007 -0500, Weidenbrueck, Dieter wrote: >same here, next week would be better. > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von > > Bezaire, Benoit > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Februar 2007 14:36 > > An: Lofton Henderson; Chris Lilley > > Cc: WebCGM WG > > Betreff: RE: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 15 February 2007 > > > > > > Postponing until next week works for me! > > > > Actually, would another day than Thursday be better for the group? > > > > Benoit. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson > > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:03 PM > > To: Chris Lilley > > Cc: WebCGM WG > > Subject: Re: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 15 February 2007 > > > > > > At 07:22 PM 2/14/2007 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: > > >On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 7:01:58 PM, Lofton wrote: > > >[...] > > >LH> Main topic: some initial discussion about how to go forward with > > >LH> errata. Chris's presence would be a bonus. > > > > > >I have a conflict; there is a staff meeting every week now, > > at the same > > > > >time as the WebCGM call. > > > > I wonder, would it make sense to postpone the telecon till > > next Thursday, when you (or Thierry) might be available? As > > it stands, I'm a bit rushed trying to finish some clarifying > > conversations on the OASIS side. > > > > Also ... I have noticed in the OASIS-side conversations that > > some aspects of this take a *lot* of email to sort out what > > would probably settle in 1/4 > > - 1/2 hour of conversation. > > > > If you have a regular conflict, we could start any time in > > the 11-1230 ET window, or could even move the call forward by > > 1/2 hour. > > > > >[...] > > >However, I am happy to answer any erratta process questions > > in email, > > >ahead of the call. > > > > I'll send one of the simpler ones along soon, in a separate message. > > > > -Lofton. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 14:25:36 UTC