From baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu  Fri Jan 22 18:20:17 1999
Received: from dad.cs.fsu.edu (dad.cs.fsu.edu [128.186.121.23])
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06466;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:20:16 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu)
Received: (from baker@localhost)
	by dad.cs.fsu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA05238;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:17:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:17:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Baker <baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
Message-Id: <199901221717.MAA05238@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, dave@rc.gc.ca, keld@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: Revisions of WG15 minutes
Cc: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk

I admit to carrying on a post-meeting
debate, now, but I don't really agree
with the conclusion below, and I was not
convinced at the meeting either:

| Regarding comments that might be generated from the ballots, we concluded
| that if comments from all three groups agreed that a fix-up were needed,
| the document could be modified. We were not sure how to handle comments if
| there was not unamimity.

It seems to me that both groups will need
to sign a letter of understanding, to
institute the joint operations.  That
letter could include stipulation that
each group would not proceed
independently.  Indeed, I don't see how
any group would be willing to go into
joint development without such a
multi-lateral agreement.

--Ted