[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']
Michael Fair wrote:
> > > > > If you honestly believe there were "thousands" of typos
> > > > > and grammar changes then I have some land to sell you...
> > > >
> > > > Yet another dishonest (sorry Pat, it is a lie. Enthusiasm is for
> > > > children)
> > > > statement from Bruce. Doug said "thousands WG and private emails" not
> > > > thousands of typos. Now who is the one trying to mislead this list?
> > >
> > > If you believe that Doug has actually received thousands of
> > > emails about this between Cap-10 and now then I have some
> > > land to sell you...
> > I just checked the list, there were 1580 emails on the list
> > from the announcement of -10 (end of Feb) until now.
> > He said he went back a month before editing -11, and feb
> > had 280 (est), total 1860.
> > If he went back to Jan that is about 150 (est) more.
> > Bringing the total to 2010.
> > Now assuming he got any private emails, 2,000 is 'thousands'.
> > Minus some number between -11 (or -12) and now.
> Oh come on, how many of those actaully had
> proposed changes in them or did the threads even warrant
> reading for proposed changes?
> On Feb. 28th Doug announced the availability
> of -10. Since then I can only find 1095 emails to
> the list. Of which 376 (roughly 25%) have been
> directly related to the July 28th RECURRENCE-ID
> discussion where the disagreements over
> RECURRENCE-ID really starting flying and none of
> that discussion has had one sugestion in about
> CAP yet.
My list shows 1580, I wonder where the difference is.
I copied the archive to a local file, made a 2nd copy
deleted all of the messages prior to 28 feb, then loaded
the result in netscape, it had 1580 email in it.
Then just by looking I estimated the Feb ad Jan emails.
You did not read all of the RECURRENCE-ID issues did you?
They were not all only about RECURRENCE-ID. There were
messages where people did not change the subject line
or mixed multiple topics in the message.