From beh@peren.com Fri Sep 12 19:00:13 2003 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h8CH01Cp034762 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:00:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from beh@peren.com) Received: from h-68-164-26-209.snvacaid.covad.net ([68.164.26.209] helo=BRONCO) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19xrHH-0001Tg-00 for embedded-c@dkuug.dk; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:00:12 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Barry E. Hedquist" To: Subject: RE: (embedded-c.137) Further input on the Disposition of Comments Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:00:58 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <200309111937.h8BJbGTa027976@dkuug.dk> My comment did not preclude inclusion of Willem's comments in a rationale, and given the feedback I'd say it's a good idea to do so. My comment had to do with whether or not a "decision", i.e. a choice of one approach or another, was made by the committee. If there was, it should be in the rationale. Barry > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry Spencer [mailto:henry@spsystems.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:37 PM > To: embedded-c@dkuug.dk > Cc: Doug Gwyn > Subject: (embedded-c.137) Further input on the Disposition of Comments > > > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Doug Gwyn wrote: > > (b) Saying the the matter was previously discussed but giving no > > good reason for the previous decision seems inadequate... > > I have to agree with Doug on this one. Something is wrong if the reasons > for a past decision cannot be explained concisely. > > Henry Spencer > henry@spsystems.net > > > >