Re: PAC: Schedule and AIs for this cycle

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@eng.sun.com>]

[tallen@sonic.net:]

| | The intended effect of the proposed language making a meeting
| | over several successive days a single session was to make it
| | unnecessary for a TC to distinguish levels of adjournment in the
| | simple case.  Does this not work?  
| 
| It just confuses things, to me.  The proposed language,
| 
| |   TC meetings carried out over a sequence of
| |   business days that follow one another in immediate succession
| |   are considered to be part of the same session.
| 
| fails to account for the fact that if the meetings were adjourned sine
| die they would not, per R, be part of the same session.  And that
| could happen.  It would be better to advise committees intending
| to make their meetings part of a single session that they should
| adjourn to a specified time (and also advise them of the reasons
| why it might matter to them whether they were continuing a
| session or not.)

You've convinced me.  I'll pull that sentence.

Jon