Re: Status of the CALSCH working group

[email protected] wrote:

>
> I appreciate your comments Doug.  However, Ned nor I ever stated it 
> was ok to flood inbaskets with email in order to stop people from 
> raising objections to items on the draft. 

The word FLOOD was not used. The topic of answering each and every email 
was discussed
so that we did not keep getting those posts about questions not answered 
years earlier even
when the questions were not well researched. When no one answers those 
questions then
there is always someone saying 'hay this was not addressed' and we did 
discuss that
the only way to close those issues. Review the non-RECURRENCE-ID questions
since SF meeting. The vast majority were alreay in the draft when the email
was sent claiming the issue was not resolved.

Aside from the RECURRENCE-ID issue which went astray, who was going to
answer those questions posted?  And I have never sent email in order to 
stop anyone.
I have sent email in order to get people to research their questions 
first as it takes
time to research each question. And as you have observed on this list 
unanswered questions
can start a debate to solve an issue that was ether already covered in 
the draft or
never in the requirements.

We also discussed how you would declare old issues closed so that we 
could move on.
And then only reopen them if there was an overwhelming consensus. Please 
do so.

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email protected]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                               |   Cell: (208)520-4044

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards