Hi Will -- Thanks for the feedback, yeah I agree with you, I should've
made the hot/cold distinction.

Also -- Josh, thanks for your comments earlier as well. I mentioned some of those
points in the SBAG discussion today. Several people in fact also independently
brought up the idea that smaller objects are different, and that we have to
define what 'small' is!

All this is great stuff to include and elaborate on in the actual section of the Roadmap
that we'll wind up writing.

By the way, I'm guessing that the slides I showed today to SBAG
will appear on the SBAG website soon, for all to see. Otherwise
I'll send the file around to the list.
cheers, and thanks.
--Yan

On 03 Aug, 2010,at 09:25 PM, "W. Grundy" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 17:14 -0700, Yan Fernandez wrote:
>
> To everyone else - Any other comments? Deadline is late Tuesday night.
> Thanks
> --Yan

OK, I went and looked out the outline. Looks good.

The only comment I have is that it's pretty clear that Cold Classical
TNOs are quite distinct from hot classical TNOs, so they really ought to
be a different group in the outline. Whether hot classical and resonant
objects ought to be similarly split is less clear-cut to me, but at
least the Cold Classicals really ought to get treated separately Of
course, this then raises questions about whether or not important
distinctions lurk among Centaurs and ecliptic comets in terms of those
having originated in the Cold Classical belt versus others that formed
closer in...

--- Will