AW: WG telecon non-participation

I agree with Benoit, a) would be best. 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von 
> Bezaire, Benoit
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2007 18:50
> An: WebCGM WG
> Betreff: RE: WG telecon non-participation
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> My intent was to participate in the call, but additional 
> (important) work related telecons showed up in my schedule 
> today. That's why you didn't see any regrets from me, sorry.
> 
> Option a) is easier for me.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Benoit.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:36 AM
> To: WebCGM WG
> Subject: WG telecon non-participation
> 
> 
> Don, Benoit, Thierry, Dieter, Chris --
> 
> You are listed as members in good standing:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=39256
> 
> Three showed up for telecon, 5 did not, 0 regrets.  (I know 
> about Chris, and Dieter indicated several weeks ago that he 
> might have a recurring Thursday problem.)
> 
> Therefore we could not endorse the extension request as 
> planned.  We have done it in a loose fashion by email, but 
> that probably doesn't suffice.  What should we do now?
> 
> a.) email straw poll (I could summarize w/ URI's of replies)
> b.) telecon 1 week from today (5/31)
> c.) quit
> 
> In next email, I will propose a revised draft extension 
> request, which I hope will remove any of the possible 
> pitfalls that Chris warned about earlier.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 17:00:38 UTC