(j3.2006) Work plan

[Malcolm Cohen]

Replying in haste...

>> No, as editor I "failed" one of the m202 papers as it needed extra work and 
>> in
>> particular one more edit I did not have the time/energy to make up on the 
>> fly.
>> This needs to be redone.
>
>Which paper is this?

See the editor's report pls.

>  Should I remove it from the Edits column of
>14-010r1, or at least remove the "E" from the SXE column?

At least remove the "E".

Inserting a reference to the editor's report which has discussion of it might be 
appropriate but I guess there is no room in the table for that.

>> There are also two UTIs arising from applying the corrigenda.  These need 
>> papers
>> addressing them.  I did sketch out how I thought these should probably be 
>> fixed.
>
>Should we have an "apply the corrigenda" work item in 14-010r1?

If it makes us feel better.  Since it has been done bar (though with 2 UTIs) 
there is nothing to keep track of.

>  The
>most likely paper to list under under the Specs, syntaX and Edits
>columns is N2005.

I worked off of N2002.

>  It might be helpful to have the item there, without
>"E" in the SXE column until the UTI's are addressed.

Disagree strongly since the edits HAVE, in fact, already been done.

UTIs keep track of themselves...

>In general, we could have numerous papers for each part of a work item.
>It would probably make sense to list the latest one, and try to be
>careful to list earlier ones in the "References" header in each paper.

Don't much care for that.  The "References" header should not contain any vital 
info.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.