Arpad,
I think the editorial committee should move forward finish 6.2, and then
let the IBIS Open Forum decide if 6.2 is approved or a just a checkpoint
for 7.0.
In the meantime, we are so close to finishing 6.2
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 4:03 PM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Proposed IBIS 6.2 Plan
Walter,
Thanks for your suggestion. I think you should resend this
email to some of the other IBIS reflectors, because this is
really not an "ATM decision". Would you mind doing that to
cover a more appropriate audience?
Thanks,
Arpad
============================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:49 PM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [ibis-macro] Proposed IBIS 6.2 Plan
All,
I propose that we should restart IBIS Editorial meetings with the goal to
complete the editorial changes for IBIS 6.2, and that we formally submit
IBIS 6.2 Draft 1 to the Open Forum. I do not propose that IBIS 6.2 be
approved by the Open Forum. It is a checkpoint for IBIS 7.0. At any time,
the Editorial can restart again when there are sufficient approved BIRDS
for IBIS 7.0 to make these changes to IBIS 6.2.
When we get around to approving IBIS 7.0, we can look at the changes
between 6.1 and 6.2, and the changes from 6.2 to 7.0 independently.
Walter
Walter Katz
<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
