From: Ralph Babel (rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 13:31:23 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Votes are to be mailed to chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk.
[x] No. You are known to arbitrarily reinterpret votes.
> Voting closes at midnight GMT on November 28th.
Gee, it's really smart to specify a timezone, but not to
specify whether midnight is meant to be 00:00 or 24:00.
> Full details of all votes, including who
> cast them, will be included in the Results.
... subject to your interpretation, of course.
> Whatever we now decide, that will be what goes in the
> document.
[x] No. If the requirements change while your silly games
are delaying the RFC even further, then we'll have
to adapt. There's no point in releasing an obsolete
RFC.
> We are not going to have these debates again.
Suuure.
> The Chairman has given his full approval to this approach.
That's not quite the way I'm reading David's comments:
http://landfield.com/usefor/2002/Oct/0197.html
(That's <000601c2747b$0c7f1650$0200000a@DAVE> for Mr. Lindsey.)
> I have also included an #X alternative under Issue 2.
> I did not think it necessary to do so with Issue 4.
I've added one nonetheless.
> Note that we are not saying in advance how large a
> margin over X would be needed to count as "consensus".
Of course not ...
> How to proceed in all these cases will
> have to be decided by our Chairman,
Again, subject to your interpretation, of course.
> Alternative #1 (STRICT EMAIL COMPLIANCE)
> ----------------------------------------
A complete misnomer, enough to invalidate the entire straw
poll IMO. Are you trying to appeal to those who said they'd
prefer full compatibility with 2822 in the previous poll?
The only alternatives that are truly compliant with e-mail
are #5 and #6, certainly not #1.
> d) Include explicit requirements on how to transform
> headers (for posted-and-mailed and moderators, not
> necessarily for other gateways) so as to be fully
> compliant with the email standards (that would include
> headers in body parts of multiparts, and so recursively).
That's the exact opposite of "strict e-mail compliance".
> The document to be split into two - one for
> Standards Track and one for Best Current Practice.
Yes, _at_ _least_ two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please insert your name [Ralph Babel ]
And your email address [rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de]
Issue 1 - (8BIT HEADERS)
------------------------
#0 (the PRESENT DRAFT) [ 4 ]
#1 (STRICT EMAIL COMPLIANCE) [ 4 ]
#2 (8bit in MODERATED - MUST NOT) [ 4 ]
#3 (8bit in MODERATED - SHOULD NOT YET) [ 4 ]
#4 (SEND 8bit REGARDLESS) [ 4 ]
#5 (ALL 8bit ENCODED on the wire) [ 1 ]
#6 (ALL 8bit ENCODED; NO I18N NEWSGROUPS) [ 2 ]
#X (CONSENSUS LIMIT) [ 3 ]
Issue 2 (SPLIT THE DOCUMENT)
----------------------------
#1 (YES, Split it) [ 1 ]
#2 (NO, Don't Split it) [ 3 ]
#X (CONSENSUS LIMIT) [ 2 ]
Issue 4 (MIME-STYLE HEADERS)
----------------------------
#1 (Sender only) [ 5 ]
#2 (Sender, Date, Message-ID) [ 4 ]
#3 (Sender, Date, Message-ID, Keywords, References) [ 3 ]
#4 (Sender, Date, Message-ID, Keywords, References, Supersedes) [ 1 ]
#X (CONSENSUS LIMIT) [ 2 ]