Subject: [wfc] FITS NOST (part 2)

From: Peter Teuben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:22:39 -0400 (EDT)

Hello WGAS FITS committee members,

  A few weeks ago I gave everybody a heads-up for an upcoming "call for
votes" on the NOST 100-2.0 document that I would like to propose is going
to take place on or before Tuesday September 21.

If anybody on this list thinks they may have objections to the NOST
document, please get in touch with me privately. If everybody remains
silent, I shall send out a CFV early next week and probably set the voting
deadline to be the end of (civic) summer, September 21.

Two weeks later there will be a FITS BoF during the ADASS meeting (Oct
3-6), so it would be timely if the WGAS endorses this document.

thanks,

   - Peter

PS: NOST Documents can be found on at least:

  in HTML    http://archdev.stsci.edu:8080/fits/fits_standard/
  in PS      ftp://ftp.astro.umd.edu/pub/teuben/fits_standard.ps

this is the one labeled 100-2.0 dated March 29, 1999.

---

From: Peter Teuben <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:48:13 -0400 (EDT)

>   in HTML    http://archdev.stsci.edu:8080/fits/fits_standard/

that really ought to be

	       http://archive.stsci.edu/fits/fits_standard/

there is actually a subtle difference :-)

- peter

---

From: Peter Teuben <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:13:16 -0400 (EDT)

Dear voting collegues,

  slightly distracted by a minor turbulence in the local atmosphere here,
as promised, I am finally going to call for a vote on the NOST 100-2.0
FITS standards documents for this Friday, September 24, 1999, 23.59 EDT.

I assume that everybody has had ample time to read over the document and I
would like your votes to be in by midnight this coming friday. Reply to
"[email-masked]" with a simple "yes" (meaning you approve the NOST
100-2.0 standard), "no", or "abstain" if you feel you cannot vote.
(but given the responses I expect none of the last option :-)

 Some of you were actually part of the NOST review panel and should be
intimately familiar with the document and realize that a lot of thought
and work have gone into this. The feedback from the community has been
very detailed at times, and significant clarifications have been made to
this document compared to the previous one. I am the wrong person to thank
the whole panel but Barry Schlesinger and Bob Hanisch deserve a lot of
credit for this work!

thank you, and I am looking forward to a full mailbox on friday!

  peter