Re: Objectives etc

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 01:40:45 CET


Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>
Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id C4F459FD5 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:20:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id DD0409FC9; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:20:03 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id C94169FD5 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:20:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from newemu.melbpc.org.au (newemu.melbpc.org.au [203.12.152.25]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 647F89F88 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:19:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a1-78.melbpc.org.au [203.12.158.78]) by newemu.melbpc.org.au (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1H3Dv617340 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:13:58 +1100 (EST)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020216111452.0249a700@popa.melbpc.org.au>
X-Sender: matthews_at_popa.melbpc.org.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:40:45 +1100
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au>
Subject: Re: Objectives etc
In-Reply-To: <20020215003812.1D2389F5C_at_karmail.ethz.ch>
References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020215062310.0247dde0_at_popa.melbpc.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11


At 16:46 14-02-02 -0500, R Knapp wrote:
>If there is a vote, I would vote yes.

Thanks Richard, but unless there's indications of unresolved disagreements
on how we should proceed, I don't think that we need to put everyone to the
trouble of formal voting for deciding on "internal" arrangements -
hopefully we will always be able to reach general agreement before we proceed.

I anticipate that we will only need formal voting when we come to make
public decisions about our final "external" outputs.

Everyone has now had a chance to put forward further suggested changes to
our Objectives etc, so in the absence of any objections, I'll update the
web pages. And as I suggested earlier, if later we see the need to update
them further, then we should do so.

Peter


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:00:00 CET