Date:         Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:39:58 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Antony Corfield <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Meeting Decision
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Mathew,

I won't be attending!




_______________________________________________________________________
Antony Corfield                            Java Developer JAFER Project

mailto:[log in to unmask]        Libraries Automation Service
   tel: +44 (01865) 284454                 99 Banbury Rd
   fax: +44 (01865) 278275                 Oxford OX2 6JX
_______________________________________________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Dovey 
Sent: 10 June 2002 10:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Meeting Decision


Unless something goes disastrously wrong between now and July, I'm a
definite.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Meeting Decision
> 
> As Jan is the only one to respond, and since her response argues for
> staying
> with the planned date, that's what we'll do (and I hope that means
you'll
> come, Jan).
> 
> So we will meet July 11-12. More details will follow.
> 
> I believe the following people are "definites":
>     Ralph
>     Poul Henrik
>     Matthew
>     Ray
>     Larry
>     Corey
> And in the  "Likely  to attend" category are:
>     Jan
>     Rob
> Please let me know if I've mischaracterized anyone's status above.
> 
> Anyone else on this list is wecome to attend. Please let me know.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> 
> Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> 
> > I would like to see a meeting as early as possible, especially to
> finalise
> > CQL.  Perhaps at the end of the first day a summary email could be
sent
> to
> > the list and those who cannot be present could phone in early the
next
> day
> > for comment if desired or they could just send a reply email to the
> list.
> > I'm thinking in particular of Alan - he would be 14 hours ahead of
DC
> time
> > so 9:00 would be 23:00.
> >
> > Janifer
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2002 16:21
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Meeting Decision
> >
> > I think the consensus (although from a very small
> > opinion-population) is that we should hold a
> > meeting rather than try to come to closure via
> > email.
> >
> > However I don't know whether people think that
> > July 11-12 is an optimal time. (I don't mean
> > logistically --  that's the date we've settled on
> > if we have the meeting any time in the next two
> > months.)  Nobody's offered an opinion on that.
> >
> > What I mean is: (1) can we get enough done in the
> > next month so that a meeting July 11-12 will be
> > productive, or (2) would it be better to continue
> > to work through these specifications via email
> > until, say, late August, and then have a meeting?
> >
> > Sorry to drag this out. I'd like to hear opinions
> > that focus on this question alone (not "yes, I'll
> > come if you have the meeting"), even from those of
> > you who would not attend. We'll decide by tomorrow
> > or Thursday. As of now, we'll go with the July
> > 11-12 date unless there are opinions to the
> > contrary.
> >
> > --Ray