-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/7/13 5:23 PM, John Leslie wrote: > 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. It might not be the first time that an IESG agenda has the wrong text for intended status. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSU0RxAAoJEOoGpJErxa2p2wcQAIjahTLFEiIK31muEQTY+ure Jx2ymwciHR/nhL/3GreeqBE6skMokaewsiBd4C1Umx/Gru3XmwGCgD5KBY/f729p Nt45TosOrP0Vqg9+qD516tuwDb+sUkTGws0AMoxbvSaz2NkDqgtfsUrY5U/+wZve v7+hNgqzfxCxEw7cjK7e8lK8RKRLk41Qyo3n1VhQhReEzJ7sNLGNzvZ3bwcHGE7A 0FrW8IV+SFaUWQJ6CTmlhFxxDyHjX84AjIje4P5RBaIuvTUUs7EorRYmI4YwmN3Z AqJvtiipJ+S/8JZVLCZ1x0I81mC0wtVP4sCMYFOUgCnlCeS57rtX1U/PQyZbEJjo 18HeMaKGJoar8ZILwoH/R2K0gZcnA3B/DnRCtTXIM1FQaMrHKHb1e04BZBB53PEo GG1qIfeGv0n71hs4rsnPW7ymZjEP+9UtjKb9dy926aiNasfGSvJOsIYgxzpfOEQX UMTHj7ET2b59bvTiQjzK5KrvOlzyMWIiArox/AS7NcFbXbZgot+0C/q3fzr92kGm uNYFzlz1wk22ChKYCTxIaZfZnZLJ4nMyTViZHk8jPBGriIY4ICt7sHSwajYMQ4Gr TQY8NNGW5KibayIU1geP1Jbx4A8Ry8WQzYR8Zvkl9+JgHkZE1AbSs/PgvAIFZI+a +B981ttjErcPGZyFBl01 =3AY7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----