RE: My proposed process for recommending changes to SEC ballots
Bob and Tony,
I have no problem with the attachment to e-mails. I am used to working with
documents with revision marks (please change the name of the document
though).
The posting on the web site has its limitations: access is limited to a
small number of people having access rights.
Regards
---------------
Vic Hayes
Lucent Technologies Nederland B.V.
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC +2 in summer time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
e-mail: vichayes@lucent.com
http://wavelan.com/
> ----------
> From: Tony Jeffree[SMTP:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: 29 September 2000 10:07 AM
> To: RDLove
> Cc: Rigsbee, Everett O; stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: My proposed process for recommending changes to SEC
> ballots
>
>
> At 20:54 28/09/00 -0400, RDLove wrote:
> >Buzz, I am concerned about the size of the attachments and the ease of
> >reading them. Therefore, I would like to recommend that we DON'T use MS
> >Word for ballots, but rather, when we want to indicate changes do it as
> >follows:
>
> Bob -
>
> We have a web site - what's wrong with doing what we do for WG ballots -
> placing the Word files on there & including a URL in the ballot
> announcement? I agree with Buzz - using the change tracking facilities in
>
> Word would make it a lot easier to comment on the text. Commented
> versions
> could then be posted on the website alongside the original.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>