RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] The missing part

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,
 
The IPC anticipates putting forth a model.  However, because of the
process required for constituency support, we will not meet this
deadline.  We hope to have it finalized in time for inclusion in the IPC
statement to be submitted on May 6.
 
K
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
        Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:18 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] The missing part
        
        

        In a previous message of mine I wrote "see below", and.... There
was nothing below. 
        The point I wanted to make is that it is high time to close the
door/window/hole/pipe/... for new proposals. 
        Mikey and myself had a chat today, and ended up in agreement
(this is actually becoming boring, where are the good old times when
co-chairs where bitterly fighting?) that we are moving from a phase in
which we have proposals to choose from to a phase in which we have to
analyse the items in each proposal.

        In simple words, if anybody would present a new proposal now, I
bet it would be at least 90% covered by some other proposal already on
the table. So why not simplify the life of everybody, and instead of
presenting a full proposal, you don't just say: "On item XYZ, we believe
the right approach is blahblahblah".

        We are already starting identifying the "atomic elements"
(please forgive me for the reference to my day job) in the "molecular"
proposals, Mike Zupke has already a first shot on this. I think that
more molecules would not add much more to the discussion, so why don't
we focus on the atoms? Mikey and myself would be inclined to close the
window for new proposals, so if you *really* have a new approach you
want to submit as a proposal, please do tell us in the next 24h,
otherwise we will close the window.

        Cheers, 
        Roberto