Lloyd,
There is clear support for both sides of this issue, so would it
be possible for the PMP to conduct a list-based "vote" to see how
close we are to consensus (either way)?
This would help ease some of the time availability problems we're
starting to see with the San Diego schedules.
...jay
----- Begin Included Message -----
From: Bob Pentecost <bpenteco at boi.hp.com>
To: "pmp%pwg.org" <pmp at pwg.org>, "'Lloyd Young'" <lpyoung at lexmark.com>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:14:11 -0600
Encoding: 50 TEXT
I do not believe we have reached consensus on this. Therefore, it should
not be added to the document.
I will be in San Diego to discuss this further, but I do not think we
should delay the document for this matter. Perhaps there is an alternative
way to clarify and publish it later.
Bob
----------
From: Lloyd Young[SMTP:lpyoung at lexmark.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 9:26 AM
To: pmp%pwg.org
Subject: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
I agree that Jay's write up makes a lot of sense and will add it to my list
of changes for the latest draft unless someone objects.
There are two problems with a review in San Diego:
1. I'll will not be there. This is a minor one though if the group wants
a review then I will find someone else to run the discussion.
2. According to the schedule, Randy will not have an updated draft ready
until Friday May 16th (the day the PWG meetings end).
Lloyd Young
Lexmark
------------------ Forwarded message ---------------------
To:
cc: pmp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP (bcc: Lloyd Young)
From: bwagner%digprod.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Bill Wagner) @ SMTP
Date: 05/02/97 11:19:33 AM
Subject: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
I was not part of the conference call, so I am not privy to the
considerations that resulted in the consensus that Jay wishes to
reverse. But, if one takes ignorance to allow objectivity, to me
Jay's indicated alternative makes perfect sense.
Despite the confusion in the precise meaning of 'off line', it
(almost) always results in the printer not printing subsequent print
jobs, so I see no difficulty in using it in the way suggested.
I would also suggest that there has been enough last minute stuff here
to warrant a review at San Diego. Last minute changes have a way of
causing problems in the future.
Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI
----- End Included Message -----