While I don't believe the WG would be positive on that, I do not believe that
question has been put to a consensus call. So I would question the word
specifically.
If you still believe it so, please tell me when you think the WG decided this.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: 28 November 2013 17:03
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: rtcweb-chairs(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; Eliot Lear;
rtcweb(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Eric Burger; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the
impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any
mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it
works against
the outcome they prefer.
The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group
specifically chose not to do a coin toss. So "willing to
settle for any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb