|
|
|
Greg Newby: 05/06/2007 4:46 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
resolution changed from PUBLISHED to none (no value)
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 07/13/2005 1:14 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-07-12 22:14:41
Priority changed from 1 to -
resolution changed from <None> to PUBLISHED
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 10/25/2004 10:46 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Mass Move
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from APME to <None>
artifact_status changed from Closed to Open
assigned_to changed from 111 to 100
Category changed from Informational to <None>
group_artifact_id changed from Submit GGF Draft to Published
resolution changed from Published to <None>
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 10/25/2004 10:29 AM EST
|
| |
Attachment: |
GFD.035.pdf
(136.7 KB)
|
| |
Action: |
Update
File added set to 462: GFD.035.pdf
artifact_status changed from ready to publish to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2004-10-25 10:29:36
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 10/22/2004 6:36 PM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
assigned_to changed from 302 to 111
resolution changed from <None> to Published
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 10/14/2004 11:05 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Based on the October 14 GFSG conference call & Satoshi Matsouka's comments, this is ready to publish.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 10/14/2004 11:05 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Public Comment Period to ready to publish
assigned_to changed from 130 to 302
Priority changed from 3 to 1
|
|
|
Satoshi Matsuoka: 10/14/2004 10:02 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
(To repeat AD comment as a public comment).
I would say that this fits the bill for lightweight reporting
requirements of a presentation-oriented workshop (Type 2). As
such I claim that this should be pushed forward. The light editing
by Charlie improved the document; as for additional analysis
he mention, yes that is agreeable but then that would lean towards
the reporting be more heavyweight than we would want.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Satoshi Matsuoka: 10/14/2004 10:02 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
summary changed from GGF11-PGM-Workshop-Proceedings-Draft to GGF11-PGM-Workshhop-Proceedings-Draft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 09/09/2004 3:05 PM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to Public Comment Period
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
|
Satoshi Matsuoka: 09/09/2004 10:04 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from AD Review to Final Editor Review
Priority changed from 5 to 4
|
|
|
Satoshi Matsuoka: 09/09/2004 10:02 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
I would say that this fits the bill for lightweight reporting requirements of a presentation-oriented workshop (Type 2). As such I claim that this
should be pushed forward. The light editing by Charlie improved the document; as for additional analysis he mention, yes that is agreeable but then
that would lean towards the reporting be more heavyweight than we would want.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 08/12/2004 5:51 PM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
I've done some reorganizing of this draft. It would be good if some additional analysis and/or conclusions were drawn from this workshop, however it
is nonetheless a reasonable record of the workshop for future reference. Some of the abstracts could be more detailed, but all of the presentations
are stored in GridForge and links are provided, and this is better than trying to embed presentations in a document.
For future workshop reports it would be good for organizers to require all invited presenters to submit a 1/2 page abstract for the purpose of the
workshop report.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 07/21/2004 12:51 PM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
| |
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to AD Review
assigned_to changed from 108 to 130
Priority changed from - to 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
