Throwing in my 2 cents. There are (at least) two kinds of changes that the committees need to be dealing with -- true errata and interpretations. I think that it might be reasonable to do the merge in parallel with the interpretation work (which will likely take longer in discussion) and then have the errata discussed and have the content of the interpretation decisions brought into the merged text. This might mean that for interpretation issues that we would have only "provisional" text approved and would need a quick reexamination to see if the provisional text is still acceptable for the merged LRM. I think that would maximize the opportunities for parallel work and would encourage committees to deal with more substantive interpretation issues earlier in the process. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Tue Jan 31 11:05:30 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 31 2006 - 11:05:38 PST