Subject: RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models (conclusion?)

From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:05:59 -0500

1. my count is 6 to 3.
2. a majority, yes, but a thin margin and small sample on which to base this decision...

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models (conclusion?)

For the record, I think it best to specify a default model.

However, assuming Sanjay's second vote masks his first, and including my 
vote above, that would leave us with 6 folks who think we should pull the 
requirement for a default, specified model, and 2 who think we should keep 
it.  That gives us a voter turn-out on our list of less than 1% ;-(

So we'll update the requirements document (currently with IESG) to reflect 
no need for a required default BC model.

Jim

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:44:40 -0500 (EST)

Hopefully for other calls we can get better turnout than 9 members out of 
1100.