Re: Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP

I’ve been sitting on the sidelines because most of the arguments for and 
against making 1984 a BCP have been said. I am slightly on the “If RFC2026 can 
be a BCP, why cannot 1984 be a BCP” side of the fence.

However, since it appears we want to promote 1984 to BCP for political reasons, 
to be effective we need to be bulletproof in our arguments. Harald has a point 
here - if we are going to say ANYTHING around the press release that comes with 
the BCP, it has to be 110% accurate [sic].

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Harald Alvestrand 
> <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
>
> On 08/17/2015 09:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > > Escrow is only useful against law-abiding people who
> > > trust the government(s) in the first place.
> > It's that assertion that has been repeatedly proven false with all
> > manner of other technology.
> {{citation needed}} - in other debates, I've heard "proof" claimed for
> all sorts of things; sometimes it's things I believe; sometimes it turns
> out that the "proof" is itself hugely controversial.
>
> You might have convincing examples, Eliot, but I can't think of any at
> the moment, so I need your help to be reminded of them.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail