Ted Lemon <ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of
resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone.
If that's the case, we have an even deeper problem than misunderstandings
of rough consensus.
Right, I think what Ted is describing is a BCP, not an Informational RFC.
Oh my! I just saw the IESG agenda, and this _is_ proposed for BCP.
I retract anything I said which might criticize Ted and/or Dave Crocker
for being too picky!
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>