On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Xavier MARIE wrote:
> >I don't think that discussing an important issue is a "waste" of time.
> >Especially, when the WG12 already recommended "Technical change needed"
>
> I think this statement is ambiguous and needs clarification.
> WG12 never formally recommended to make a technical change there, or elsewhere.
> (Actually, this is not even on the agenda now, since
> what is targeted is a corrigendum, not an amendment).
> What a task force within WG12 once said is that from the technical
> point of view, if the requested concern were to be answered positively
> then this would imply a technical change.
>
> So please don't confuse both issues there. There has been no a priori resolution
> to make any change. Discussing potential changes is useful and a source of
> progress. On another hand, it also consumes time. If the MTF wants to
> focus its meeting, it might consider focusing its discussion on clarifications
> (as opposed to changes), since the target is a corrigendum document anyway.
> It seems to me clarifications could be easily accepted, while changes might
> lead to long discussions and thereby ruin the whole process.
Right. There are a lot of things which are quite easily and fast to be solved.
On the other hand, there are some possible changes like the addition of the
proposed "GetEventData" action. I aggree that the best solution would be
a corrigendum with no technical change at all. But this is propably not the
case.
Anyway, I would not like to consider discussing any of the topics a waste
of time.
Regards,
Andreas
-- o _ Andreas Kraft (\_|_) GMD FOKUS, kraft@fokus.gmd.de, +49 30 3463-7232 T> ] [ The sky is the limit