From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 04:40:38 CST
In <000801c29bb0$be3a8210$0200000a@DAVE> "David Barr" <barr@visi.com> writes:
>Given the number of options, it's not bad to see an arguably "narrow"
>majority (10 out of 18) for one position. The 4 out of 18 is a clear
>indication that #1 clearly is overwhelmingingly considered a good
>decision. The fact remains we still have some others that we also
>consider "good", but fundamentally it comes down to picking something
>that is clearly acceptable to the large majority and moving forward.
>That, fundamentally, is the definition of consensus.
>I declare that #1 has achieved rough consensus and we should move
>forward on that basis.
>> The majority view here was evidently to split the document.
>> Although the majority was not huge, enough people placed #X
>> as their third choice to make it clear that the majority
>> decision should be accepted by all. In fact, the majority
>> against #X was 13:4 (only 1 abstention this time) and I think
>> that is a clear "rough consensus".
>I agree.
OK, my present plan is to fix the MIME-style parameters (Issue 3) first,
plus a few odds and ends that are pending (like "poster").
But I would like some guidance on whether to use my revised
"extension-parameter" wording. My inclination is to do so, unless I hear
screams otherwise.
Then I shall do Issue 1 (strict email compliance).
Then I shall produce a further complete draft, to establish a base line.
Then I shall embark on the splitting.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5