(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4449) AW: PDTR on Further Interoperability

[John Reid]

Bader, Reinhold wrote:

>> Unfortunately, May 1st has passed and we are not ready for a 3-week informal
>> WG5 ballot (item 3). Bill and I think that we need to abandon this plan. Instead,
>> Bill proposes a new plan:
>>
>> 1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits arising from
>> our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus.
>>
>> 2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until the end of May.
>>
>> 3. By the beginning of June, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base document
>> at the Garching meeting.
> 
> This would be the consensus draft resulting from the review in 2, I assume?

Yes.

> Any contentious items then would be processed in step 4 via the usual paper
> submission procedure? It might be useful to somewhat extend the usual 
> deadline for paper submission from 2 to 1 week before the meeting.

Thanks for pointing this out. Dan is try hard to stop a flood of papers being 
written at the last minute. I think it would be better to move steps 2 and 3 
forward by a few days to make the draft available for 4 weeks before the meeting:

1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits arising 
from our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus.

2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until May 26.

3. By 30 May, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base document at the 
Garching meeting.

4. The PDTR is constructed and approved during the meeting and the PDTR formal 
starts soon afterwards.

Is this OK, Bill?

Regards,

John.

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.