From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 05:35:05 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10206111040100.14881-100000@spock.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>This change is a clear violation of the process. A section of the draft
>that was claimed to be the product of consensus has been changed
>significantly without a single word of discussion, without a single word
>of objection to the current wording, and after the last-call for
>objections. To claim that it now reflects Rough Consensus is ludicrous. If
>it did not you should have spoken up long ago, as I did about 5.2.
No. You were applying an interpretation to the draft that noone else had
noticed. Pedantically, you interpretation may have been correct, but it
was not what the rough consensus intended. Therefore I changed it, and two
people have subsequently confirmed that my change accurately reflects what
the rough consensus had assumed all along.
-- 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