That's fine; I just needed the feedback. I wasn't sure if this was going in the right direction, and if you thought that it would meet with IESG approval.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:37:13 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think the new wording is fine and even an improvement. I should have said > so in so many words -- sorry. > > However, please understand that I'm only a messenger on behalf of the IESG > here. If I had had a problem with what the document said originally I would > have voiced it during AD review. I'm personally well aware of the backwards > compatibility issues in this space -- perhaps too aware. Of course this is > one of the reasons why we have IESG review as well as AD review.
