[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C

To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>, "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:55:12 -0700
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <E11SBxQ-0000G5-00@roam.psg.com>
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

> Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 9:19 PM
> 
> > 	3. Javier and I have determined that, on the basis of 
> the messages
> > submitted to the list, the "6-10" proposal is supported by rough
> > consensus.
> 
> nice try.  but no.  it quite clearly was not.

... and the basis for your clarity?

References:
- Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
  - From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread