last call results - process document

[graham.travers at bt.com]

Melinda,

Nearly right !   8o)

"...there no working group consensus..." should read "...there WAS no working group consensus"... 

Sorry about that !


FWIW, my recollection accords with those of Melinda and Margaret.  The suggestions for longer-term improvements were holed below the waterline in Vienna.  Nevertheless, I think it would be useful to include them for *information* - to prevent people going over the same ground again in the future.  Isn't that what Informationals are for ?


	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Exact

	e-mail:   graham.travers at bt.com
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
	      




-----Original Message-----
From: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Melinda
Shore
Sent: 15 December 2003 17:43
To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: last call results - process document


The original proposal was to add this:

          This Informational memo is being released to record
          the history of discussions by the Problem WG in
          2003.  While there was working group consensus on
          the portions of the document describing processes
          for short-term and medium term improvements, it
          does not represent a set of steps for longer-term
          improvements for which there was Working Group
          consensus.

which several people felt was unclear (because it is).  Here's
a revision which I think is more to the point:

          This Informational memo is being released to record
          the history of discussions by the Problem WG in
          2003.  While there was working group consensus on
          the portions of the document describing processes
          for short-term and medium term improvements, there
          no working group consensus on the proposals for longer-
          term improvements.  Those are included in the document
          as a matter of record but must not be regarded as
          recommendations from the working group.


Melinda