In message
<63e38a5b081437478c77651f3d56c64f58052...@orsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com>,
dated Mon, 9 Jun 2014, "Pettit, Ghery" <[email protected]> writes:
There's a chance that I will direct WG4 to resolve the national
committee comments on the FDIS and go with a CDV, skipping the CD
stage.
I think it's a bold move, but if the CDV is not accepted, the situation
will be worse. I wonder if you would consider circulating the proposed
CDV text as a DC with a short comment time? A DC gives a lot more scope
for explaining why some decisions were made.
But, you are correct in that there is not enough time left in the
project to go the CDV/FDIS route, so an NP will be required. But, for
CENELEC to state that CISPR I has abandoned CISPR 35 is a gross
misstatement of the facts as I understand them.
I'm sure it's a simple misunderstanding that will be corrected.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
