As Jan is the only one to respond, and since her response argues for staying
with the planned date, that's what we'll do (and I hope that means you'll
So we will meet July 11-12. More details will follow.
I believe the following people are "definites":
And in the "Likely to attend" category are:
Please let me know if I've mischaracterized anyone's status above.
Anyone else on this list is wecome to attend. Please let me know.
Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> I would like to see a meeting as early as possible, especially to finalise
> CQL. Perhaps at the end of the first day a summary email could be sent to
> the list and those who cannot be present could phone in early the next day
> for comment if desired or they could just send a reply email to the list.
> I'm thinking in particular of Alan - he would be 14 hours ahead of DC time
> so 9:00 would be 23:00.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2002 16:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Meeting Decision
> I think the consensus (although from a very small
> opinion-population) is that we should hold a
> meeting rather than try to come to closure via
> However I don't know whether people think that
> July 11-12 is an optimal time. (I don't mean
> logistically -- that's the date we've settled on
> if we have the meeting any time in the next two
> months.) Nobody's offered an opinion on that.
> What I mean is: (1) can we get enough done in the
> next month so that a meeting July 11-12 will be
> productive, or (2) would it be better to continue
> to work through these specifications via email
> until, say, late August, and then have a meeting?
> Sorry to drag this out. I'd like to hear opinions
> that focus on this question alone (not "yes, I'll
> come if you have the meeting"), even from those of
> you who would not attend. We'll decide by tomorrow
> or Thursday. As of now, we'll go with the July
> 11-12 date unless there are opinions to the