From keld  Fri Jan 22 18:37:27 1999
Received: (from keld@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06577;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:37:27 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from keld)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:37:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld>
Message-Id: <199901221737.SAA06577@dkuug.dk>
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu, dave@rc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Revisions of WG15 minutes
Cc: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk

> From: Ted Baker <baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
>
> 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:

I think it is fine to do further discussions, the issue is far
from settled anyhow, at this time.

> | 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.

I think what Jay wrote up is what we had of common understanding, (but
actually not in WG15, this was the procedures group. Thus this should
not be in WG15 minutes).

I am not sure why you don't agree with this, Ted, I understood
that this was one of the things that you were championing.

Anyway, I agree that we should look into a syncronization
plan or the like, for all of the three parties involved.

Keld