I thought we had a call today at 9:30 am? Did I get confused?
Kartha, Neelakantan wrote:
>
>
>
> I will be out of the country and will not be able to make the next meeting.
>
> Kartha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:26 AM
> *To:* Prasad Yendluri
> *Cc:* bpel spec
> *Subject:* RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
> *Importance:* High
>
> OK so Prasad wants to take 33, 101 and 117. I will take 25 and 53.
> Prasad can go first.
>
>
>
> It turns out that I have to run for a last minute fire fighting
> exercise, so I have to cancel out of the meeting today. My deepest
> apologies for the lack of notice!
>
>
>
> * From: * Prasad Yendluri [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:58 AM
> *To:* Satish Thatte
> *Subject:* Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
>
>
>
> Works for me..
>
> Satish Thatte wrote:
>
> There is also the resolution of 53 which involves removing Appendix C
>
> and all refs to transaction protocols in the spec. I will take that one
>
> as well as 25. You go first.
>
>
>
> That should keep this really short!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:34 AM
>
> To: Satish Thatte
>
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
>
>
>
> Satish,
>
>
>
> To keep the con call short ;) I can take 33 and 101 and if needed 107.
>
> Perhaps Yaron should pick 25?
>
>
>
> Regards, Prasad
>
>
>
> Satish Thatte wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear Editors,
>>
>>
>>
>> 25, 33, 101 and 117 have been resolved with recommended changes and
>>
>>
>
> need to be incorporated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Peter's list says 11 was also resolved during the last call but I don't
>>
>>
>
> recall discussing it!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Let us talk tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Satish
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
>
