-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/7/13 5:23 PM, John Leslie wrote:
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.
It might not be the first time that an IESG agenda has the wrong text
for intended status.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=3AY7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----