From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 11:47:24 CDT
On 03/05/2004 19:04, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your
>> arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could have been saved.
>> Well, I guess it is not too late to include them in a revised proposal.
> What format would you like that addition to have? ...
I'll leave that to you, but for a start you can name Deborah Anderson as
a user of the script with whom you have had contact. And yourself if you
like, as far as I am concerned.
> ... While I am pleased that you are happier, my own interest is in the
> technical accuracy of the code chart and character names, not in
> *justifying* its inclusion.
Well, I hope the UTC is concerned with the justification of new
proposals, and not just their technical accuracy. They were obviously
concerned that the Klingon proposal was not properly justified, and so
rejected it. If your proposal is not to suffer the same fate, it needs
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT