On Mar 13, 2005, at 11:41 PM, Cindy Eisner wrote: > if i understand the current review process correctly (harry please > correct > me if i am wrong), the purpose of the review by the entire working > group is > not to bring up new major or minor issues (those should have been > brought > up in the extensions or lrm committee, respectively) but rather to > review > for correctness and consistency. > Actually, this is correct. Ben, I welcome any suggestions you might have for future enhancements to be worked on during the next round of PSL standardization. However, keep in mind that the objective of our current review is to identify errors in the technical work that has already been completed (and agreed upon) by this working group. Keep in mind that you have not participated in any meeting or discussions in this working group since the Oct 5-th meeting. Hence, it is unfair to bring up new items or features outside the working group's agreed upon list for this version of standardization. Please see the following list of accepted changes and extensions for details: http://www.eda.org/ieee-1850/ieee-1850-lrm/hm/0026.html -HarryReceived on Mon Mar 14 00:06:57 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:07:04 PST