I agree with Joel. Enough is enough. John
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2010, at 11:14 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Personally, I would object to including that effort in the report. > While I laud your efforts to try to pull things together. I > personally > find many of the distinctions ineffective or misleading. The text > itself is not wrong (generally), but I find it sufficiently unhelpful > that I have not tried to analyze it for accuracy. > > Also, as those constraints were not adopted by the working group, and > were not adopted by the proposers of the various approaches, including > it in a survey of our work would not help the reader in any > significant > fashion. > > Yours, > Joel > > >> http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/ >> >> has been fine-tuned as a result of >> considerable RRG discussion. As far as I >> know no-one objects to this attempt to >> express the real constraints we are >> operating within. Quite a few people >> expressed their support for this attempt - >> though of course we all wish there were no >> such constraints. >> >> I suggest that we work on a version of this >> to be included in the RRG Report, which >> the co-chairs will hopefully be able able >> to find rough consensus support for. >> >> Could the Report include a section near >> the front classifying the proposals into >> various groups? >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
