Jason, I disagree with David’s proposal. Suggesting that it is just wording changes that are needed when if fact there may be conceptual issues, lack of data, or other difficult problems. It invites reviewers to edit, but not explore the deeper issues. On 2/20/17, 3:12 PM, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote: From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:02 PM >Incomplete Candidates" ? It could be something like this. [Jason] […] I would be comfortable with language such as that which David has put forward here, preferably after moving the proposals into an Appendix, but leaving the two proposals that the working group agreed should go in the draft in the body of the document. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ ________________________________ 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 Monday, 20 February 2017 21:00:10 UTC