| 1 |
On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:34:14 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Had we gone with any of the other proposals a year ago, we'd be |
| 5 |
> > waiting a year every time a new change came along. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Only if that change prevented obtaining EAPI from wherever it was |
| 8 |
> placed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
...or if you want version format changes. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > If the Council were not a fan of GLEP 55, they would have voted |
| 13 |
> > against it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why? If there is no reason to move forward with haste why not just |
| 16 |
> leave it out there and see if somebody comes up with a better idea or |
| 17 |
> see if circumstances change? If the perception was that there were a |
| 18 |
> pressing need for forward movement on this chances are that somebody |
| 19 |
> would have proposed an alternative GLEP and the council would have |
| 20 |
> just approved that instead. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Three out of six Council members considered GLEP 55 to be necessary |
| 23 |
enough to vote yes on it the last time it was put to a vote... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives