From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 17:14:58 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk):
> 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.
It is correct, and it was clearly what the consensus intended since not a
single person thought the wording was incorrect. They all had time to
notice, they all read the draft, and yet not a single person spoke up
requesting a change. The evidence shows that this is what the consensus
intended, otherwise someone would have objected prior to last call.
> Therefore I changed it, and two
> people have subsequently confirmed that my change accurately reflects what
> the rough consensus had assumed all along.
Two people who had plenty of time to object prior to last call, and
thought that the section was just fine the way it was. The fact that not a
single person objected prior to what turned out to be a fictional last
call proves that the consensus was in favor of the previous language. Two
people who support you to spite me do not prove anything.