Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 11:43:15 PST
I had no objection for 169.
I simply observed that one sentence, which said that a certain change should be
"considered", is covered in 163, and therefore is not part of the proposal for
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Karen Pieper wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:03:17 -0800
> From: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Voting results for 2/17/03 email vote for ETF
> Hi, all,
> I have heard issues raised for only 169 and 175 so the rest pass.
> Stefen, can you update the database?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 11:44:24 PST
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.