HI Mark,

On Sat 2039-Feb-12 18:05, mark lewis (1:3634/12) wrote to Richard Webb:

 RW> YEah I know, can't do a small amendment without presenting a whole
 RW> document. 

ml> it has to be done or the amendment, taken out of context, could very
ml> easily change a whole lot more than what is intended... it must all
ml> be read "in toto" so as to completely understand the entire
ml> document...

There's that to be considered as well.

ml> for example, the last/only P4 amendment process... it was supposedly
ml> for one relatively minor update/fix... however, what was originally
ml> presented contained *two* alterations... not the one proposed... i
ml> caught this fact immediately and presented two additional
ml> documents... each with the individual amendments... i may also have
ml> presented a third which would have been a duplicate of the original
ml> as it contained both changes...

I'm curious when that was.

ml> yet, i'm accused of derailing the process yet the RCs were the ones
ml> who couldn't figure things out :? :( 

Ain't politics fun?
Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+