On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 10:44:21AM -0600, David Ward wrote: > Dave - > > It is better but, still not completely correct (given the remainder of > the section). The meta-point is that the doc is a statement of what was > discussed in the workshop. There are factual errors in the doc in addition > to what I cited (I purposefully chose perhaps the least controversial in > 7.3). Your answer below implies that you would like the workshop doc to be > correct vs leaving it as a statement from the workshop and then having the > problem statement fully clarified. I suggest that you proceed forward w/ the > problem statement and not potentially revise history. Of course, it is up to > authors and group ... Well, what the report is supposed to reflect is what happened at the workshop. So I didn't intend to revise history, but rather clarify what was said. --dmm
Attachment:
pgpzsx6C12Nx7.pgp
Description: PGP signature