From OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Tue Jan 19 22:19:40 1999 Received: from bluefish.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (firewall-user@relay.npt.nuwc.navy.mil [164.223.71.1]) by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18631 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:19:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil) Received: by BLUEFISH.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:09:23 -0500 Message-ID: From: Oblinger_Jim_T To: "'Jason Zions'" , "WG15 (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (wg15tag 2215) (SC22WG15.1371) FW: SC22 N2875 - Vote Summary for PDAM8 to IS 9945-1 - POSIX Syst em API - Additional Realtime Extensi o ns (C Language) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:09:34 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Jason; Not so silly as it might first appear. It seems in ISO that this is similar to the POSIX abstain with explanation categories (A1, A2, A3). Here the comments were noted under the Secretariat Action as: The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Austria was: "Lack of expert resources." The comment accompanying the abstention vote from France was: "Lack of resources." The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Sweden was: "Lack of expertise." Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jason Zions [mailto:jason_zions@interix.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 3:58 PM To: 'Oblinger_Jim_T'; WG15 (E-mail) Subject: RE: (wg15tag 2215) (SC22WG15.1371) FW: SC22 N2875 - Vote Summary for PDAM8 to IS 9945-1 - POSIX Syst em API - Additional Realtime Extensio ns (C Language) Just how does a country "abstain with comments"? And is a Disposition Of Comments necessary to resolve them? Jason Zions Approve Disapprove Abstain Comments Not Voting Austria ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( ) France ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( ) Sweden ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( )