On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To be clear here, I did not think Pete's document was going for BCP. I remain concerned that the publication of this document as an an AD-sponsored Informational RFC will impute status to it as a community conclusion, rather than the start of a conversation (or, rather, the continuation of one). Some of the comments of "I've wanted something like this to hand to..." are part of what cause me to believe that.
On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Right, I think what Ted is describing is a BCP, not an Informational RFC.
> 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.
And, to re-iterate, I do not think the document is ready, even if the IESG believes that a document of this type should be published; it needs a much clearer sense of audience as well as attention to the other points that have been raised.
regards,
Ted
regards,
Ted