Re: RM again

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

At 12:45 PM 10/13/2000 -0700, jacques durand wrote:
>Hi Nick:
>
>f2f seems definitely the place to discuss RM (should we have a presentation?)

No problem (but keep it to under 30 mins) and focus on implementation 
aspects rather than reviewing the spec. Just let Sid get you on the agenda. 
He plans to send out the agenda on Monday.

>I assume most of us would have had time to read the spec by then... :)
>
>Nicholas Kassem wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your input Jacques. The process is simple, all we need is a
> > majority of the committed participants to agree.
>
>(I assume you mean "agree to update to POC demo draft".
>Only *some* participants would need implement it, like for other features)

What I meant to say is that the majority of the participants need to agree 
to show RM. I made a distinction between showing RM and actually doing RM. 
It would be desirable to have at least two participants (preferably ones 
not already partnered ;)  doing RM.


> > However my suggestion is
> > that we have an informed vote following the f2f next week - rather than
> > doing that now. Does this seem reasonable ?
>
>Seems fair. Though the more we wait, the less time for feedback to TR&P...
>(Anyone having any question on the specs today,  should probably not wait
>next
>week to give feedback to TR&P and POC.)

Agreed. Feedback should not be gaited on POC activities.

Regards,
Nick