434 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
434 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.14;
|
||
access;
|
||
symbols;
|
||
locks; strict;
|
||
comment @# @;
|
||
expand @o@;
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.14
|
||
date 2009.02.12.04.00.32; author DonaldHobern; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.13;
|
||
|
||
1.13
|
||
date 2009.02.03.04.56.42; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.12;
|
||
|
||
1.12
|
||
date 2009.01.23.11.24.25; author JamesYtow; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.11;
|
||
|
||
1.11
|
||
date 2009.01.22.22.59.28; author JerryCooper; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.10;
|
||
|
||
1.10
|
||
date 2009.01.22.02.48.19; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.9;
|
||
|
||
1.9
|
||
date 2009.01.22.02.37.33; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.8;
|
||
|
||
1.8
|
||
date 2009.01.21.20.57.39; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.7;
|
||
|
||
1.7
|
||
date 2009.01.20.10.20.33; author AdrianRissone; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.6;
|
||
|
||
1.6
|
||
date 2009.01.20.06.53.02; author StanleyBlum; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.5;
|
||
|
||
1.5
|
||
date 2009.01.20.01.24.50; author DonaldHobern; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.4;
|
||
|
||
1.4
|
||
date 2009.01.19.23.52.21; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.3;
|
||
|
||
1.3
|
||
date 2009.01.19.21.47.12; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.2;
|
||
|
||
1.2
|
||
date 2009.01.13.08.07.23; author AdrianRissone; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.1;
|
||
|
||
1.1
|
||
date 2009.01.12.21.10.41; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next ;
|
||
|
||
|
||
desc
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.14
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="DonaldHobern" date="1234411232" format="1.1" version="1.14"}%
|
||
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}%
|
||
---++TDWG 2009 Discussion
|
||
|
||
*TDWG Executive only - Not for public release.*
|
||
|
||
|
||
---+++Adrian Rissone (updated by Lee to summarize all comments received by 22nd January 2009)
|
||
The key points in decreasing priority are:
|
||
|
||
1. The meeting is very expensive (even with the financial contributions) and the margin (to build TDWG finances) is too small. Accommodation will also be expensive. Costs could be a 'show stopper'.
|
||
1. The meeting must remain primarily for TDWG with an emphasis on working groups to focus on key outcomes. The program is a copy of 2008 because Elizabeth needed something to work from. We need more information from Elizabeth about the time and slots required for Bioversity/Agropolis sessions to see how much can be accommodated. The program is TDWG's responsibility (with input from the local committee).
|
||
1. Given the workgroup emphasis/time, unless the five meeting rooms in Joffre (50 each) can be split into at least two, we probably don't have enough rooms for the group meetings. We have ~15 groups and if the emphasis is on group meetings, one suspects most will meet. We also had a number of additional meetings (e.g. metadata) in Fremantle and we had up to ~40 people in some of the meetings.
|
||
1. The provision of electric power is inadequate and WiFi distribution and bandwidth is an unknown. These will both be needed for the working groups.
|
||
1. The potential "loss" if the meeting has to be cancelled is very large and not full quantified. Bioversity must understand that the risk is theirs (Adrian tried to make that clear in Fremantle).
|
||
|
||
There are less crucial issues:
|
||
|
||
1. We do not know if the banquet cost includes drinks.
|
||
1. The Welcome Reception probably needs to be the Sunday.
|
||
1. The dates are late in the year and may clash with the best date for the GBIF Governing Board meeting.
|
||
1. Stan needs to look carefully at the registration fee with respect to setting member discount and student rates within the overall budget (can we get an idea from a breakdown of 2008?).
|
||
1. We probably need a bigger space for the Business Meeting (there were at least 100 in the hall in Fremantle).
|
||
|
||
---+++Renato De Giovanni
|
||
I read the proposal and it seems the comments already cover all aspects. Personally I think the location is quite reasonable and it will be a good opportunity to improve interaction with communities working with agricultural biodiversity data. I'm sure there can be ways to overcome electricity/Internet issues. Financial issues are the most important ones to sort out.
|
||
|
||
---+++Stan Blum
|
||
|
||
In addition to the concerns raised by others, I'm concerned about:
|
||
|
||
1. Obligation to the venue (rental) if we have to cancel. Cancellation has a very small probability, but it would be a big cost to TDWG if it happened -- nearly catastrophic. (What are the dates and who has to sign the contract?)
|
||
1. The cost structure is a little strange:
|
||
a. Registration fees account for 57 to 72% of the actual costs (in kind contributions and costs removed from the analysis). So the real costs for the meeting are very much higher than anything we've done to this point.
|
||
a. Bioveristy and Agropolis are in for a total of 22,000 EU of "in kind" contribution, but then someone is taking 5% in management fees. (I'd like to hear an explanation of that.)
|
||
1. Holding 5% in contingency may not be enough, given past experience.
|
||
1. Find out whether the banquet includes the cost of wine.
|
||
|
||
I would like to talk to the local organizers in advance about billing, liability for unanticipated expenses, disposition of the remaining funds, and the need for TDWG to derive significant income from the meeting.
|
||
|
||
---+++Donald Hobern
|
||
Sorry - my comments were in an earlier email to Lee and I forgot to post them here - I see they are all fairly well covered already.
|
||
1. Practical details seem generally good - although electricity/Internet remain an issue.
|
||
1. The meeting is expensive (even with the financial contributions) and the margin is too small.
|
||
1. The program is a copy of this year, but I assume that is because Elizabeth needed something to work from.
|
||
1. We would need to make sure this did not become too much of a hybrid meeting and dilute the TDWG side.
|
||
|
||
---+++Lee Belbin
|
||
1. It is a well-researched and comprehensive proposal.
|
||
1. The location is fair, requiring travel from a hub such as Paris.
|
||
1. The timing is late in the year but does avoid the summer vacation problems we have had with some previous meetings.
|
||
1. 300 Euros is expensive by TDWG standards. Almost twice the cost of Fremantle and that was one of the more expensive meetings. Accommodation will be relatively expensive for non-Europeans.
|
||
1. Profit to the TDWG budget is too low. I would have recommended a margin of at least 100 Euros/person.
|
||
1. The suggested program is similar to Fremantle and therefore not what Donald wanted for 2009: a significant group work schedule. Elizabeth knows that the program would be the responsibility of a Program Committee (that would have at least one representative from the local committee). The requirements for a profile of Montpellier-related groups may still be feasible. The positive aspect is that the meeting would engage new groups.
|
||
1. We certainly will need GOOD wireless Internet access in the group meeting rooms.
|
||
|
||
-- Main.LeeBelbin - 20 Jan 2009
|
||
|
||
---+++Anna Weitzman
|
||
1. The program format is just like the last two years and not at all what we discussed for this meeting with more time for actual workgroup meetings. That being the case, we will need rooms for the various workgroups to meet in for more days. Those also need internet access and sufficient power for participants.
|
||
1. The issue of no power for those in the hall is a really bad one. Laptops do not charge that quickly between sessions. Also, how many outlets will be available in the Joffre 1 area?
|
||
1. Wireless internet access will be available--what bandwidth, how many concurrent users?
|
||
1. The registration costs seem quite high. There is no discount for members?
|
||
1. I am concerned about the format of the meeting and how much it will be about their priorities rather than TDWG's. I agree that this is an important group to bring in, and I support this idea for the meeting overall, but we really need to be clear that this is a TDWG meeting.
|
||
|
||
(FYI, I'll be unreachable 28-30 January. I'll be in London at the NHM from 2-10 Feb.)
|
||
|
||
---+++<2B>amonn <20> Tuama
|
||
I had a quick read of the Bioversity proposal and I'm in favour of supporting it. It seems to be pretty well researched, comprehensive, is in a reasonable location with good facilities and offers the opportunity of having TDWG interact with a particular community of practice (plant genetic resources) which cuts across many of the TDWG standards activities. This could set a precedent for future meetings where a community's requirements are explored in detail and help TDWG set priorities. I'm assuming that the TDWG conference would not be unbalanced by the Bioversity approach and that there would be equal time for other sessions.
|
||
|
||
The only slight misgivings I have concern the timing - I think Nov is a bit late and hope it does not clash with the GBIF Governing Board meeting (dates still to be decided).
|
||
|
||
---+++Gail Kampmeier
|
||
Overall, I think that this focus on bringing agriculture into biodiversity is a very important one and a source of rich datasets that will help answer, when shared, questions that conservation and land managers have been asking, but not finding answers in traditional museum collections based data, which populate most of our biodiversity databases.
|
||
|
||
Going over the budget pages (Devis TDWG 2009.pdf)
|
||
|
||
1. pp. 11-12 Are we required to rent from them or is it possible that some items might be brought by members for use?
|
||
1. p. 13 is space for 80 enough for the business meeting?
|
||
1. Is this outside of meeting space for the Executive (does not appear to be included)
|
||
1. Right now, in translating to current USD, with 180 people at $76,500, a break-even registration = $425 (about 320 Euros, 625 AUD, 290 British Pounds), but we traditionally comp a certain number of people; reduce the price for students, which would drive up registration for regular attendees. I don't remember what we paid last year; will the market bear this?
|
||
1. Student registration is one thing that is not addressed in these plans.
|
||
1. Depending on the program, I would be stunned if we weren't to get 180 people registering for Montpellier (location, location, location), even in these economic times.
|
||
1. We don't have the large auditorium the entire week, which will force more small breakout/working group meetings, which is probably a good thing.
|
||
1. Like the Cyberzone & poster area and available WiFi (do we know what kind of traffic their system will support? We tend to bring down the house wherever we go :-/ ). Considering this will be in November, will we need cloakroom facilities? Notice that someone to caretake these is not included in current costs. Maybe this is unnecessary worry--people can just keep coats/jackets with them.
|
||
|
||
Looking at other Word document with more logistical details,
|
||
|
||
1. Notice that the Welcome reception is on Monday rather than Sunday. Logistically is it better to have it on Sunday to encourage people to arrive Saturday to participate in group meetings Sunday? Don't know how flexible this is.
|
||
1. Did not compare the Devis budget numbers with that on the Word Document, which I would guess the latter is more reliable if there are differences.
|
||
|
||
Looks like something we can work with; will have to figure out stuff for student attendees, however. And perhaps sponsorship that matches contributions from developing countries?
|
||
|
||
---+++Jerry Cooper
|
||
I think we have to make a major decision about the desired conference format. Donald called for a return to a focus on working group activities. I support that because it’s the best way of making things happen. But our community also needs a forum for presenting work, and TDWG needs a conference to provide significant revenue. Can these aims all really be achieved at the same meeting in the same week? Reasonable conferences fees can be justified and should be included in grant applications. However, I’m not as keen on paying a big conference fee and then putting effort into working groups for a week. I think that’s asking a bit much even though I know those funds are primarily intended to keep TDWG ticking over! I take the view that I’ve ‘done my bit’ through increased membership fees. Others may feel similarly. And this year we have the possible effect of the Informatics meeting in London. Will that take conference presentations that would otherwise come to TDWG? So, if we are supporting a standard style conference, and we expect it to attract sufficient numbers in spite of the London meeting, then I think the Montpelier proposal is fine. Personally I will have to choose between TDWG and the London meeting because of the consequent expense, and I suspect some others will do the same. But what about an alternative scenario? I suspect the brief to Montpelier was a ‘standard’ conference’ which is why they are proposing use of a conference centre, which is contributing to the high cost. But what about a mini-conference and working groups? Maybe we use a conference centre for a bare-minimum plenary session and we use spare rooms in universities/institutes for working groups and smaller focussed presentations? That also allows further reduction in overheads because local organisers will have more control (and flexibility) over providing such things as power sockets, wi-fi and catering. But maybe they are primarily interested in organising the meeting because it is a standard conference and they may not want to do anything else?
|
||
|
||
---+++James Ytow
|
||
I think that all aspects are covered already. Power and network are issues for group meetings, while it is not so critical for standard style conference (depending on audicences?). Jerry is quite right but I'm not confident in what we can expect to effect of the London meeting udner this financial circumstance.
|
||
|
||
---++Suggestions for Themes (see the file of received suggestions from members below)
|
||
|
||
Given the timing of the conference, I suggest that we would (just about) have sufficient time for one of our themes to be a coordinated response to the roadmap/priorities coming out of e-Biosphere.
|
||
|
||
---++Suggestions for the Program Committee
|
||
|
||
---++Conference Date and Venue
|
||
|
||
November 7-14 2009, Montpellier, France.
|
||
|
||
---++Conference Proposal
|
||
|
||
The proposal from Finland having been withdrawn, the Executive now has to consider the remaining (full) proposal from Elizabeth Arnaud, representing a partnership of [[http://www.bioversityinternational.org/ Bioversity]] and [[http://www.agropolis.fr Agropolis]], based in Montpellier and France in general.
|
||
|
||
The following documents are confidential to the Executive. Please do not distribute them.
|
||
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc][TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc]]: Main Proposal document
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/Bioversity_International.pdf][Bioversity_International.pdf]]: General information about Bioversity
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/candidaturemontpellier.zip][candidaturemontpellier.zip]]: Information about Montpellier
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/TDWG2009_montpellier.xls][TDWG2009_montpellier.xls]]: XLS version of budget breakdown
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/Devis_TDWG_2009.zip][Devis_TDWG_2009.zip]]: Breakdown of Venue accommodation
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/TDWG_meeting_09_letter_Cirad.pdf][TDWG_meeting_09_letter_Cirad.pdf]]: Letter of Support from CIRAD
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/SupAgro_letter_of_support_.pdf][SupAgro_letter_of_support_.pdf]]: Letter of Support from SupAgro
|
||
|
||
---++Additional Material
|
||
|
||
* [[%ATTACHURL%/TDWG_2009_Ideas.doc][TDWG_2009_Ideas.doc]]: Ideas for the Conference structure/programme
|
||
|
||
|
||
---++Discussion
|
||
|
||
Please send your comments and suggestions to Adrian (secretary(at)tdwg.org) *and* Lee (lee(at)tdwg.org). We will summarise and post them here.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="Bioversity_International.pdf" attachment="Bioversity_International.pdf" attr="" comment="General information about Bioversity" date="1231826541" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\Bioversity International.pdf" size="644994" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\Bioversity International.pdf" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc" attachment="TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc" attr="" comment="Main Proposal document" date="1231827021" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc" size="624640" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG2009_proposal_181208.doc" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="candidaturemontpellier.zip" attachment="candidaturemontpellier.zip" attr="" comment="Information about Montpellier" date="1231827330" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\candidaturemontpellier.zip" size="6139608" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\candidaturemontpellier.zip" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="Devis_TDWG_2009.zip" attachment="Devis_TDWG_2009.zip" attr="" comment="Breakdown of Venue accommodation" date="1231827464" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\Devis TDWG 2009.zip" size="1883242" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\Devis TDWG 2009.zip" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="TDWG_meeting_09_letter_Cirad.pdf" attachment="TDWG_meeting_09_letter_Cirad.pdf" attr="" comment="Letter of Support from CIRAD" date="1231827527" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG meeting 09_letter_Cirad.pdf" size="362954" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG meeting 09_letter_Cirad.pdf" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="SupAgro_letter_of_support_.pdf" attachment="SupAgro_letter_of_support_.pdf" attr="" comment="Letter of Support from SupAgro" date="1231827806" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\SupAgro_letter of support_.pdf" size="715114" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\SupAgro_letter of support_.pdf" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="TDWG_2009_Ideas.doc" attachment="TDWG_2009_Ideas.doc" attr="" comment="Ideas for the Conference structure/programme" date="1231828736" path="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG 2009 Ideas.doc" size="93184" stream="C:\Users\ar\data\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG 2009 Ideas.doc" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="TDWG2009_montpellier.xls" attachment="TDWG2009_montpellier.xls" attr="" comment="XLS version of budget breakdown" date="1232444287" path="D:\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG2009_montpellier.xls" size="23040" stream="D:\work\TDWG\TDWG2009\TDWG2009_montpellier.xls" user="Main.AdrianRissone" version="1"}%
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.13
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1233637002" format="1.1" version="1.13"}%
|
||
d102 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.12
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JamesYtow" date="1232709865" format="1.1" version="1.12"}%
|
||
a40 3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
d100 4
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.11
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JerryCooper" date="1232665168" format="1.1" version="1.11"}%
|
||
d100 3
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.10
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1232592499" format="1.1" reprev="1.10" version="1.10"}%
|
||
d97 3
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.9
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1232591853" format="1.1" version="1.9"}%
|
||
d8 2
|
||
a9 2
|
||
---+++Adrian Rissone (updated by Lee to summarize comments received by 22nd January 2009)
|
||
The key points are:
|
||
d11 3
|
||
a13 3
|
||
1. The meeting is very expensive (even with the financial contributions) and the margin (to build TDWG finances) is too small. Accommodation will also be expensive.
|
||
1. The meeting remains primarily for TDWG with an emphasis on working groups to focus on key outcomes. The program is a copy of this year because Elizabeth needed something to work from. We need more information from Elizabeth about the time and slots required for Bioversity/Agropolis sessions. The program is TDWG's responsibility (with input from the local committee).
|
||
1. Given the workgroup emphasis/time, unless the five meeting rooms in Joffre (50 each) can be split in two, we will not have enough rooms for the group meetings. I suspect we will need up to 10 rooms. In Fremantle, most meetings were 1/2 day so we needed fewer rooms.
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.8
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1232571459" format="1.1" version="1.8"}%
|
||
d8 2
|
||
a9 2
|
||
---+++Adrian Rissone
|
||
Everything I have to say is covered elsewhere. The key points seem to be (please add to this list if I've missed anything):
|
||
d11 5
|
||
a15 7
|
||
1. The meeting is expensive (even with the financial contributions) and the margin (to build TDWG finances) is too small.
|
||
1. The potential "loss" if the meeting has to be cancelled is very large and not full quantified. Does Bioversity understand that the risk is theirs (I tried to make that clear when I talked to Elizabeth in Fremantle)?
|
||
1. The program is a copy of this year because Elizabeth needed something to work from, but it is unclear as to how much time is required for Bioversity/Agropolis sessions and when they will take place. It's our responsibility to build a reasonably firm program as soon as possible but we need more information from Elizabeth.
|
||
1. We would need to make sure the meeting remains primarily a TDWG meeting.
|
||
1. The provision of electric power is inadequate.
|
||
1. There is insufficient information about the internet bandwidth available.
|
||
1. We do not know if the banquet cost includes drinks.
|
||
d17 1
|
||
a17 1
|
||
There are less crucial (but still important) issues:
|
||
d19 4
|
||
a22 3
|
||
1. The date of the Welcome Reception.
|
||
1. The dates may clash with the best date for the GBIF Governing Board meeting.
|
||
1. We (Stan?) need to look carefully at the registration fee with respect to setting member discount and student rates within the overall budget (can we get an idea from a breakdown of 2008?).
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.7
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="AdrianRissone" date="1232446833" format="1.1" reprev="1.7" version="1.7"}%
|
||
d26 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.6
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StanleyBlum" date="1232434382" format="1.1" version="1.6"}%
|
||
d8 19
|
||
d109 1
|
||
d124 1
|
||
d132 1
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.5
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="DonaldHobern" date="1232414690" format="1.1" version="1.5"}%
|
||
d7 17
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.4
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1232409141" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
|
||
d7 7
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.3
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1232401632" format="1.1" reprev="1.3" version="1.3"}%
|
||
d32 20
|
||
a51 1
|
||
-- Main.AdrianRissone - 13 Jan 2009
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.2
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="AdrianRissone" date="1231834043" format="1.1" reprev="1.2" version="1.2"}%
|
||
d7 19
|
||
d27 4
|
||
a30 1
|
||
-- Main.LeeBelbin - 12 Jan 2009
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.1
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1231794641" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
|
||
d3 14
|
||
d18 19
|
||
a36 1
|
||
---++TDWG 2009 Discussion
|
||
d39 7
|
||
a45 1
|
||
-- Main.LeeBelbin - 12 Jan 2009@
|