> I have no problem with Steve's language as a kind of "sense of both
> working groups and the DASC steering committee, all at once." That
> works out fine with me; it provides a context within which all can
> work. I have my doubts about including it in the PAR --- not
> because I disagree with it, but because I suspect it will cause
> NESCOM heartburn. It is different, and the standards committees
> (NESCOM, REVCOM, etc.) tend to kick out the different as a reflex.
> Doubleplusungood.
I concur wholeheartedly with Dave. As we've just seen with SVWG, the
different tends to confuse the IEEE, and the default mode when they're
confused is "disapprove."
Paul
-- Paul Menchini | mench@mench.com |"The last thing I want to do is OrCAD | www.orcad.com | spread fear, uncertainty and P.O. Box 71767 | 919-479-1670[v] | doubt in the users' minds." Durham, NC 27722-1767 | 919-479-1671[f] | --Don Jones, MS's Y2K Product Mgr