From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 6:32 PM While Gregg's proposed edits could be seen as providing more context, the current draft that others have +1'd does not have that language, and yet was accepted. As Andrew notes, this is a Work Statement and not a contract for delivery, and this Working Group had sufficient time to review and address the draft prior to the call for consensus. Question: are we prepared to re-open this to adjust the language and then send it out for another CfC? [Jason] If editorial changes can be accepted during a CFC without invalidating the result, then I think Gregg’s proposed amendments fall into that category and should be treated as doing so. ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 23:16:38 UTC