Re: [soa-rm] Editing tasks.

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

Peter,

Just thought I'd let you know that "conclusions" was removed from the 
outline during the F2F.  The consensus was that it wasn't appropriate 
for a spec (it would be for a whitepaper...).  If you feel differently, 
by all means, make some noise :-)

Regards,
Matt

On 27-Apr-05, at 6:34 AM, Peter F Brown wrote:

> Matt:
> As indicated at our kick-off meeting, I'd like to concentrate on:
> 3. Glossary
> 4. Relationship to other standards; and
> 9. References
> In other words, the reference sections of the spec and their internal
> coherence. IMO, this would also include flagging contributors using
> ambiguous terms or text in any submission.
>
> In addition, I would like to lend a hand to section 7. Conclusions,
> particularly as regards language used.
>
> Talk later,
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
> Sent: 26 April 2005 16:19
> To: 'SOA-RM'
> Subject: [soa-rm] Editing tasks.
>
> Folks,
>
> One thing that I'd like to talk about is assigning sections to editors.
>   Can the editing team please look at the pdf I checked into Kavi and 
> state
> your preferences?  What sections do you want to work on?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Matt
>
>
>