Subject: Re: iTIP updates

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:56:47 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> Ok, besides the obvious "Its gonna happen because email is not
> 100%" kind of answer Ill reiterate my original response in a
> different way to be clearer.  I (still) see no compelling
> reason to rev SEQUENCE for this (and restart the workflow
> process) when sending out a message with a newer DTSTAMP will
> achieve the desired results.  Simply put, if Pat and I have an
> ongoing weekly meeting we both have accepted and I want to add
> Steve to it; why do I have to invalidate Pats current status
> and make her reACCEPT all the affected entries

Maybe Pat doesn't want to come if Steve is there?

(No, I'm not implying anything.  :-)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"What now, Brain?" "We should flee in terror.|
[email-masked]|Yes, that would be the wisest course."       |
\==============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 23:54:15 -0500

Hm, attending meetings with multiple vendors in attendance is ALWAYS 
interesting. Not a problem.   8-)
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
12/01/00 09:56 AM

        To:     CalSched IETF <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: iTIP updates