opencsa-liaison — archive

[Jeff Mischkinsky]

hi all, I'm fine with this too, so i think this makes everyone. Do we need a formal kavi ballot or is 7 emails in affirmation enough? Actually.. to avoid another 7 emails, if my co-chair concurs i think we can assume silence as no objection to unanimous consent. otherwise he can start a kavi ballot :-) -jeff On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Michael, > > Since we are the liaison reps from binding, were we (or was I) > supposed to do this? > > -Anish > -- > > Michael Rowley wrote: >> +1 >> I don't think a meeting is necessary for this one, but I believe that >> the binding TC was looking for input from the Liason committee >> regarding >> whether or not the bindings should be in the SCA namespace, a binding >> specific namespace, or both. I thought that someone from Bindings >> was >> going to be formally asking the Liason committee to provide a >> recommendation on that. >> Michael >>