On 12/09/16 12:23, Loa Andersson wrote: > Stephen, > > Errata that does not attract interest could do so for many reasons. I > think we at least should make up our mind if they should be rejected. > If they are not they at least should be held for a future bis. That is reasonable, assuming "we" is the set of folks reading this thread. S. > > /Loa > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 12 sep. 2016, at 12:15, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 12/09/16 10:56, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> >>> The ADs might have to point to someone to resolve the (oldest) >>> errata. Or errata that belong to closed wg's. >> >> FWIW, for my WGs, I follow the practice of handling any errata for >> which someone shows interest. So if there're any that need to be >> processed, then please ping me, and/or a relevant mailing list and >> I'll take action. If, OTOH, nobody is interested, then that is also >> true of me:-) >> >> While other ADs may be more proactive than me, I think it's true >> that if pinged, ADs will generally take action. >> >> Cheers, S. >> >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>