Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[top quoting fixed, extra words deleted, and the Reference: header
restored.  All due to brain-dead mail software.]


In <C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEB8E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 13:59 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>> >                                         This work plan does not include 
>> > scopes outside of "mail from" and "pra", and it is our opinion that no 
>> > new work items of this type should be considered until MARID has 
>> > successfully produced a first specification.
>> 
>> I strongly disagree with this opinion. I believe that it does not make
>> sense to have multiple scopes, and certainly not to plan to add even
>> more scopes later. I shall explain my reasoning:
>
> I agree with Andy.

No, apparently you agree with David Woodhouse.  It is easy to get
confused when you don't use proper quoting.


> I thought we should have done this all along.


Yes, I know.  This was discussed long ago.  The rough consensus was
against your opinion.  I thought that while there should be multiple
scopes, we could have one record that covered them all.  The rough
consensus was against my opinion.


Now, can we *PLEASE* stop re-raising old issues everything someone new
comes into this working group?



-wayne