Re: [regrep] We had more business to conduct this morning!

["Farrukh S. Najmi" <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

Breininger, Kathryn R wrote:
> I was reviewing the TC processes and discovered that we needed to
> conduct a little more business with the erratas!  I would like to
> propose that we do this via e-mail, if possible. Below is what we needed
> to do (sorry - my fault for not having it in front of me this morning!).
>
>
> We did item (a) this morning.  We need to confirm by full majority vote
> that the proposed corrections do not constitute a substantive change
> (item b), and then we need to agree to submit the proposed erratas for a
> 15-day public review (item c).
>
> Could we have a brief discussion via e-mail, and if agreeable, would you
> like me to set up electronic votes in Kavi for items b and c? (this
> would be a total of 4 ballots, two for each errata).
>
> Please respond with agreement, suggestions, or discussion!
>
>   

Dear colleagues,

I agree on the record that the RIM *and* RS errata do not constitute a
substantive change (item b)
and that we should to submit the proposed erratas for a 15-day public
review (item c).

I thought we had voted to conducted ballots via email for the TC. Can we
do that instead of KAVI?
If so I vote Yes on all 4 ballots.

1. I agree that the RIM errata do not constitute a substantive change
2. I agree that the RS errata do not constitute a substantive change
3. I agree that the RIM errata be submitted for a 15-day public review
4. I agree that the RS errata be submitted for a 15-day public review

Thank you.


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com