Well, hey, if someone would just suggest something else, I'd be happy to
fix it. I didn't have any alternative language in my notes ... :-(
Crankily,
Diane
At 10:16 AM 6/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom, the "non-conforming" language is in Diane's revised draft at
>4.7.1:
>
>http://128.253.121.110/DC-UB/DC-UBprocess3.html
>
>Stuart
>
> > I know that the process document still has this notion of
> > "non-acceptance" or "non-recommendation" which means nothing
> > more than that a proposal isn't going to become a DCMI Recommendation.
> > I'd really like to have us consider dropping this notion as a specific
> > status
> > --drop it both literally and from the UB process document leaving us
> > with a process in which the UB either brings a proposal forward as a
> > Recommendation (X-Domain, Domain-Specific, Obsolete) or it does
> > not (with explanation of why not).
>
>I agree. Are you referring to the notion of "non-conforming"? I thought
>we had dropped that already. What part of the Process document are you
>referring to?
>
>Tom
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>___
>Dr. Thomas Baker
>[log in to unmask]
>GMD Library
>Schloss Birlinghoven
>+49-2241-14-2352
>53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax
>+49-2241-14-2619
|