<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
- To: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:37:19 -0700
Looks sufficiently *beefy* to me. Also agree with Chucks further beef to
15.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 12, 2008 3:55 pm
To: "gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Dear all,
Attached is my attempt to "beef up" our deletes section, with changes
shown as mark-up. I have essentially elaborated a little on our
reasoning without stretching the substance much further. Enough? Too
much? Too little? Foot faults? - Well, please comment.
Best regards
Olof
PS. As to "CT", my preliminary finding is that it is indeed a misprint
for "Consensus Ranking", which is the term used for these values in
Ross' group's final document to the Council. I'm inclined to suggest
replacing "CT" by "Consensus Ranking", spelled out.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|