From baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu  Sun Jan 24 22:41:47 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 WAA19934;
	Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:41:46 +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 QAA01543;
	Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:39:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Baker <baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
Message-Id: <199901242139.QAA01543@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

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

What I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that we have to allow
for the possibility that any single organization who does not like the
ballot outcome could go ahead and produce an independent standard
that is incompatible.

It seems the joint development project should only proceed if the
three groups "sign on" to the joint procedures, including the
stipulation that by voting "no" on the ballot of the joint
standard any group will be agreeing not proceed further with a
standard in this area if the standard is approved by the other two
groups.

--Ted