All,
*Remember, this hum closes tomorrow (Friday, May 1).
As I stated in an email on Monday.
"
This is a consolidated hum.
If you don't agree that we need an applicability statement, hum against it.
If you agree that we need an applicability statement, but don't like the
current text, hum against it.
If you agree with the statement as written, hum for it.
If consensus is against the statement, it will be taken out of the draft.
"
I use the term 'applicability statement' as that was the term that
originally started this discussion. It in no way implies the chairs
desires. Changing the term now would cause an even bigger discussion, IMO.
My hope is that everyone followed the discussion and makes their choice
heard via this call for a hum. Thank you to those that have already
expressed their choice.
We still have the old version of the draft. If consensus fails as outlined
above, we'll bring back the old version.
-Marc-
On 4/29/09 2:38 PM, "Randall Gellens" <randy at qualcomm.com> wrote:
There have been a couple of people asserting that the text in the
document was added without consensus. While it is certainly the
chairs' prerogative to call for consensus on this point, there was a
lot of discussion on the list five weeks ago. It certainly had
enough discussion then to warrant inclusion in a document version for
discussion. In fact, I think the current text is basically Richard's
take on a compromise that would get us past the deadlock we seem to
> be revisiting.