[alicebot-archcomm] Why are we here?

[Dr. Rich Wallace]

The formal procedure is to propose a Resolution, have someone else 2nd the
motion, and then it must be passed by a majority of the members of the
committee.

Perhaps we should step back and take a Roll Call to see who is actively
participating in the Committee.

Rich

> I agree...
>
> What is up?
>
> I would be happy if we could even get a vote to change the specification
> and then somebody would actually change the specification.
>
> I've mentioned a type-o in the spec and what to do when a default Li is
> missing with the condition tag...and nothing...
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dirk Scheuring <scheuring at gmail.com>
> To: alicebot-archcomm at list.alicebot.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:46:39 AM
> Subject: [alicebot-archcomm] Why are we here?
>
> Not that I find discussions about validity in terms of the XML
> specification uninteresting, but I'm still curious about their impact
> on the actual work anybody is doing with AIML. It appears to me that
> Rich, the AI Foundation - which is hosting the not-quite-document in
> question -, and Pandorabot are fairly satisfied with AIML being a
> kinda loosely specified XML "dialect", and I can live with that, too.
> The reason for me to subscribe to this list was that I noticed that
> they changed the rules, and that non-Archcomm-members like me suddenly
> could do so, and I thought that there might be a new plan or something
> behind that. So what's up?
>
> Dirk
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm at list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm at list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm
>