Ed McNeeley wrote:
> .. didn't we also agree that Searching should be a SIG? Ray, can
> you clarify for us?
Yes, we did agree to have a search sig.
Weibel,Stu wrote:
>
> There was a Searching group proposed, but nobody actually signed up for it
> at DC-6, and in the interest of keeping the number of groups to a manageable
> size, I didn't initiate it in the first round.
>
> We can do so if there is strong interest in it, but I would personally
> prefer to see these issues dealt with in the Implementors group until it
> becomes clear that there is sufficient interest and energy for it to carry a
> group... is that agreeable?
Fine with me.
--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
202-707-5795
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|