pre-LilleHammer mailing deadline

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

I feel guilty about being there as an author because I haven't been 
participating in the recent discussions. I've had a surge of urgent work 
coming in the past weeks so I set aside for later reading any email that 
wasn't urgent (and some urgent ones to, sigh).

However, I do plan on deepening my participation to our effort, so my 
thinking is, insofar as the authors' names reflect the stream of 
documents we'll produce (rather than this particular instance), I'd be 
glad to have my name kept in there, unless we as a group decide on a 
different policy.

At the same time, I encourage people who have contributed and plan on 
continuing to contribute to add their names to the list.

Back to speech feature extraction...


Cheers,

Andrei

Boehm, Hans wrote:
> I will try to get a first cut at a brief document out late tonight.
> I have other commitments tomorrow, but my plan is to revise the
> document and sent it to Clark on Sunday.
> 
> By default, I will keep the same set of authors as for the original
> document (N1680).  If anybody wants to be added or removed, let me know,
> preferably after reading the draft.
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Nelson, Clark [mailto:clark.nelson at intel.com] 
>>Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:59 PM
>>To: Boehm, Hans
>>Cc: Doug Lea; jimmaureenrogers at att.net; Ben Hutchings; Andrei 
>>Alexandrescu; Kevlin Henney; Bill Pugh; Maged Michael; 
>>asharji at plg.uwaterloo.ca; Richard Bilson
>>Subject: RE: pre-LilleHammer mailing deadline
>>
>>
>>
>>>We discovered today that the deadline for the pre-Lillehammer
>>>mailing is today.
>>>
>>>Hoe firm is that deadline?
>>
>>Today is the nominal deadline. The actual deadline is Monday 
>>morning (Pacific time), and that's pretty firm. If you can't 
>>be ready to publish by Monday, then I'm afraid it'll have to 
>>wait until the post-meeting mailing. Of course it would also 
>>be possible to distribute it at Lillehammer for discussion, 
>>if someone is going to be there -- or possibly even if not.
>>
>>In whatever mailing it goes, you can use N1777=05-0037 to 
>>identify it. Will it be a revision of N1680?
>>
>>Clark
>>