Issue 7 revisit

Doug, I'm happy to re-open the issue (which isn't actually closed yet until
I get the updates from Simeon). However, I presume it's down to the TC to
agree to re-open it.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Bunting" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Minutes Confcall January 19


> All,
>
> My apologies for missing the call yesterday due to the holiday.
>
> Did the group agree to Mark's proposed resolution for issue 7 without
> modification?  That is, are we going with "Respondant"?  Agreement on
> this issue implies the group is not paying attention because
> "respondant" is not in the dictionaries I have checked, even as a
> British spelling.  "Respondent" seems to be the correct word though its
> meaning involves a legal nuance (being a defendant) irrelevant to our
usage.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 20-Jan-04 07:01, Guy Pardon wrote:
>
> > Below are the meetings I recorded. Due to the interference on the line I
> > am not sure if I got everything right.
> > Please send your comments to me if you have any.
> >
> > Guy
> ...
>
> > Next item: issues resolution
> > Martin: The only way to make progress is by going over issues and
> > resolve them before moving on.
> > Did everyone get a chance to read the issues? Silence. Any motions?
> > Remark: In most cases they appear typos or editorial fixes.
> >
> > Motion to adopt them (issues 1-11) by Greg. Anybody seconding? Yes:
Simeon.
> > Any discussions? No. Objections? No. Motion approved.
> >
> > Simeon still has to do an update.
> ...
>
>