> As discussed at the last VASG meeting, getting 1076a completed
> through RevCom has run into some delays. The primary reason for the
> delay is the fact that we did 1076a as a supplement (based on
> guidance from the IEEE many years ago), but our RevCom mentor is
> concerned that 1076a fits better as a normal revision. (Based on
> his description of a revision and supplement, I would agree. Too
> bad we didn't get that advice earlier on ;-(. Although our mentor
> is exploring possibilities for completing 1076a as a supplement, I
> thought I'd investigate an alternative with both VASG and SVWG.
> In New Orleans, it was suggested (sorry I forget who first suggested
> it, but multiple people thought it might be a good idea) that we
> simply stop any further work on 1076a and simply roll the 1076a work
> into the 1076-1999 revision. The purpose of this email is to assess
> the sense of the VASG and SVWG groups as to whether this would be a
> good or bad thing to do.
> PROS:
> ...
> CONS:
> ...
My opinion will vary depending on how fast the IEEE can resolve the
issue. If they could quickly decide on how we should handle 1076a,
then I'd say "complete it."
However, given their track record, I'm someone less than completely
sanguine about this prospect. If they aren't forthcoming, then I'd
vote to merge.
On the other hand, what additional problems would merging cause the
IEEE? Have that been yet explored?
Paul
-- Paul Menchini | mench@mench.com |"The last thing I want to do is OrCAD | www.orcad.com | spread fear, uncertainty and P.O. Box 71767 | 919-479-1670[v] | doubt in the users' minds." Durham, NC 27722-1767 | 919-479-1671[f] | --Don Jones, MS's Y2K Product Mgr