Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:36:08 -0500
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I’m not sure what, if any, is the process required/desired of such
>>> updates.
>>
>> As established at the Urbana meeting, the process is that the consensus we
>> need is of SG10, not WG21.
>
> On that basis, I think it's sufficient for a change to have support on
> this mailing list, rather than having been visible to the full
> committee in a WG21 document, prior to being incorporated into SD-6
> (with similar amounts of time allowed for objections).
>
> So, +1 to using the attachment, following Jens' proposal.
+1
— WEB
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I’m not sure what, if any, is the process required/desired of such
>>> updates.
>>
>> As established at the Urbana meeting, the process is that the consensus we
>> need is of SG10, not WG21.
>
> On that basis, I think it's sufficient for a change to have support on
> this mailing list, rather than having been visible to the full
> committee in a WG21 document, prior to being incorporated into SD-6
> (with similar amounts of time allowed for objections).
>
> So, +1 to using the attachment, following Jens' proposal.
+1
— WEB
Received on 2016-02-24 00:36:15