Re: Procedures Document
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Whatever, the objection is withdrawn, so you may proceed as you wish.
It is the weekend, but I suppose anybody who cares has had a chance.
I will be scarce the rest of the summer, and can always find lots
of other ointment to fly into.
Take care ...
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> Hang on!
>
> Jon has moved that there is a vote on the document, rather than object.
> I think it is reasonable to give the week he has asked for to see if
> there is a second. If there is none, and no other objection, then
> you can declare it passed by unanimous consent.
>
> Matthew West
> Business Information Architect - Supply Chain Management
> Shell Information Technology International Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> > Sent: 01 May 2004 13:19
> > To: jawbrey@att.net
> > Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> > Subject: Re: Procedures Document
> >
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Thank you for withdrawing your objection. At this point, there are
> > no outstanding objections to the document, but to verify this, I will
> > ask again and inform the group that if there remain no objections,
> > the document will be approved based on unanimous consent.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 01 May 2004 08:02:31 -0400 Jon Awbrey
> > <jawbrey@att.net> writes:
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > >
> > > Jim, Matthew, SUO WG,
> > >
> > > My objections are to the 'way' that the procedure document
> > > was developed, in what, for all practical purposes, was
> > > a meeting that nobody would really have time to attend.
> > >
> > > But time gets even more precious -- so let me do it this way:
> > > I withdraw my objection and move that we have a vote on the
> > > procedures document that Matthew submitted. If nobody else
> > > is worried about it enough to second in a decent interval --
> > > say, middle of next week, then we move on.
> > >
> > > Jon Awbrey
> > >
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > >
> > > jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jon,
> > > >
> > > > Could we address the Procedures Document again. I believe you
> > > > wanted to wait for the archives to be working for posting your
> > > > comments. The threaded version works.
> > > >
> > > > Could you explain your objections to the procedures document
> > > > so Matthew can see if he can resolve them.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o