Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of >> resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone. >> If that's the case, we have an even deeper problem than misunderstandings >> of rough consensus. > > Right, I think what Ted is describing is a BCP, not an Informational RFC. Oh my! I just saw the IESG agenda, and this _is_ proposed for BCP. I retract anything I said which might criticize Ted and/or Dave Crocker for being too picky! -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>