post-call cleanup

[Syd Bauman]

> > David Birnbaum has proposed, we feel we need to be re-
> > chartered as a workgroup. [TEI-MS + MASTER = new MS]
> for P6, then, I assume?

I was under the impression the goal was for P5.

<p>> It is my belief, by the way (and I am curious to know whether
> others have it too) that the break between P4 and P5 will not be
> repeated in P6. So, until proved otherwise, I assume that we
> design P6 and P7 to be compatible with P5, simply introducing new
> modules.

I think that is a brash assumption. I believe that the council has
not addressed this issue. While I mentioned it for other reasons at
the Board meeting in Nancy, it is not a board issue, and no one said
anything about it anyway.

My general view is that being married to backward compatibility is a
Bad Idea. (Which doesn't mean that P6 should not be backward
compatible, mind you, but does mean it is something that should not
even be considered, let alone decided, until after P5 is finished.)