Hiya,
Thanks Robert. Good summary.
On 02/09/15 15:20, Robert Sparks wrote:
Several people expressed concern that it was not clear why
this change was proposed. The relevance of citing RFC20's
status change was questioned. The discussion resulted in
agreement to remove the mention of RFC20. The remaining
text should focus clearly on the motivations for making the
change. It was suggested to explicitly note in the
status-change document that this is an exceptional action,
but that it falls within the processes laid out by RFC2026.
In case folks go looking, I didn't yet make the change to
the status change document. I'll get that done Friday or
over the weekend and send a mail here when it's done. (And
specific text suggestions welcome offlist in the meantime.)
Cheers,
S.