Douglas,
<Chuckle> Pointed affirmation is even more welcome than silence. I
accept the friendly amendment. And I'll try to better about indicating a
speak-by-or-you're-agreed deadline.
Since I just sent in the new charge, workplan, and modifications to
the web site (to be posted sometime - there's a fixed update cycle, don't
know the date for the next one --I'll alert folks when it's up), the
deadline was yesterday(naturally announced after it occurred -- hey, these
little tricks making chairing all the easier ;)
Great link!
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Campbell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DC Date WG 2003-2004 workplan
Hi all,
>>> "Childress,Eric" <[log in to unmask]> 27/01/04 13:52:05 >>>
> Silence may be reasonably assumed to be affirmation.
This seems reasonable to me - it's probably easier to not have to do
anything unless you have something to say! However I would like to
suggest that a time period is always included, eg. "I'm looking for
comments by x date", otherwise it's not clear how long to listen to the
silence before you can assume everyone agrees! And also it's easy for
anyone to suggest the timeframe is too short if they need more time to
consider...
um, I won't say here that it looks OK to me because that would be
breaking the silence that indicates that it looks OK to me ;-)
On a different tack I stumbed [as you do] across the following
introduction to various calendars in use
(Gregorian/Hebrew/Islamic/Indian/Chinese/Julian). I found this quite
eye-opening having really only ever been aware of our Common
Era/Gregorian calendar. This may be useful for work item 1e
(representation of non-Gregorian dates).
Reprint of "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac", P.
Kenneth Seidelmann, editor, at:
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html
Douglas
|