Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [wsbpel] Process question
As I said on the call this morning, my intention is not to do anything
silly and wasteful. In that light, I *do not* intend to write a
placeholder proposal. If anyone feels that I must do so in order to
submit the proposal later, please speak up. Otherwise my assumption
will be that the issue will be allowed to go through in its due course.
Danny
Diane Jordan wrote:
My understanding/recollection of the
decision of the TC is that any issue that doesn't have a proposal put
forward
by April 1 will be considered for closure by the TC (with the revisit
flag
set) and will remain open only if the TC votes to keep it open (can't
recall
whether the vote is simple majority or 2/3 majority but will check
before
next meeting).
Hopefully we will avoid doing
anything
too silly.
Regards, Diane
IBM Emerging Internet Software Standards
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
Danny van
der Rijn <>
03/22/2005 02:13 PM
To
Diane
Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
wsbpeltc
<>
Subject
[wsbpel]
Process question
I'm going through the list of issues as April 1
approaches.
I notice that I still have 120 open, which is dependent on Issue 96.
By
our rules, do I need to have a proposal out for 120 by April 1? What
the proposal actually is is heavily dependent on 96, but I can put out
a
placeholder proposal if the process requires it.
Danny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
Next in thread →
Next in month →