Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:44:35 -0500
today was a travel day, so i'm late to the party.
but i'll join the rest in supporting (and commending) your reply.
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding the PEDNR report - see
> I felt that some of their comments needed to be addressed, as they could be
> inferred as saying that the WG was less than meticulous in reviewing the
> comments we received to the draft report.
> I have taken the liberty of replying. This was done purely on my only behalf
> and I made that clear. Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the comments do
> reflect the views of the WG when it reviewed the original IPC comments. A
> copy of my posting is attached.
> As Marika has not yet summarized the comments, I am hoping that my new post
> will be reflected in that summary. This is in line with the future plans to
> have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.
> If anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and Marika
> know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.
> Alan<Reply to IPC.pdf>
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)