On 2002-02-13 12:30, "ext Brian McBride" <> wrote:

> Its down to you 
> Patrick.  Can I have a straight answer please.  I'll interpret another
> evasion as no.

<snip> (lots of nasty harsh words deleted...)


I have valid issues about the current proposal and
find that your wording and that of Pat's summary itself
is forcing words of full agreement and acceptance
into my mouth. I am *NOT* evading the issue.

I am actually trying real, real hard to move this forward
and get the convergence proposal out to the WG and broader
community ASAP.

I know that you are eager to see progress and reach some
significant milestone towards closure before the F2F, but
quite frankly, you're really pissing me off (though I'm
sure the feeling is likely mutual at the moment).

I have sent a proposal for closure to Pat for his personal
comments, which I CC'd to you. Since Pat and I seem to
be the only ones actually discussing these remaining
issues, I wanted his comments first.

I feel that it may be the final solution. Really.

It addresses my concerns about usability and
user awareness of the nature/utility/properties of the
idioms while keeping all three idioms.

And some of those issues touch upon the technical parts
of the proposal.

My direct answer then is no, to submitting Pat's summary
as-is without qualification. But if Pat is OK with my
most recent proposal, and the rest of the subgroup is
also OK with it, and the convergence proposal is updated
accordingly, then my answer is yes, and in fact I think
then that we're done.

If you consider that evasion, fine.


Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email:

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 06:59:37 UTC