Andrew,
Please cite the messages that I posted which declared my intent for
these two
outcomes. I do not know which assertions you are referring to.
"so far, no such constituency has been evident"
from an exchange in which you were ruling Phil's proposal out of
scope because there had been no discussion on it.
1. How does an offered assessment of the presence or absence of a constituency
demonstrate ones "intent"?
2. If you believe the constituency was evident at that point, please cite the
email archive record for it. I continue to view the email archive record as I
did then, namely that "no such constituency has been evident".
"This note is both an assertion of the rules and a request for any
indication of rough consensus AGAINST them."
from your message indicating these rules are in scope even though
there had been no discussion on it.
1. The term "double standard" carries all sorts of negative implications. From
your followup note, it appears that the differential use of alternative
decision
mechanisms is something you deem as demonstrating that a double standard is in
operation. I can't guess the logic behind that assertion.
2. As I have now said more than once, if there is a problem with using these
rules, it should be a simple matter to get a clear indication of group
preference against it, or at least for an alternative.
3. Do you, in fact, have a problem with the idea that this group should conform
to established IETF standards for the professional conduct of participants? If
you don't, then I'm entirely confused about what you are complaining about.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net