RE: [gnso-trans-wg] FW: Transfers prioritization - a very small question...
Sounds good to me, especially since that is what I think I already did in the latest draft. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:03 PM > To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] FW: Transfers prioritization - a > very small question... > > > Hi all, > Regarding the "CT" issue, I just got confirmation from a most > authoritative source - Ross himself - that this is a typo, see below. > Accordingly, let's skip CT and use Consensus Ranking whenever > we need to, in order to stay consistent with the prio group's > vocabulary. > > Best regards > > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: den 12 mars 2008 18:54 > To: Olof Nordling > Subject: Re: Transfers prioritization - a very small question... > > Hi Olof - > > I would guess that this is a typo that may have crept in somewhere. > The group I worked with only discussed the "consensus > rankings" - I don't have any recollection of anything that > looked like "CT". > > Hope this helps! > > -ross > > On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Olof Nordling wrote: > > > Hi Ross, > > A small group of volunteers is currently finalizing the work of > > suggesting groupings of the "remaining" transfers issues, based on > > your groups priority settings. In that work, we reference your > > Consensus Rankings of the individual issues, but somehow they have > > seeped into our document as, for example, CT 6.0, where I wonder > > whether "CT" is just a misprint for "CR" or has some other > > significance. I suppose the former, as I cannot find "CT" in your > > earlier documents, but I would appreciate your confirmation or > > comments on that. > > > > Thanks > > > > Olof > > >