> > > What Larry is saying - or at least, what I'm agreeing with, > > > regardless of whether Larry meant this or not - is that if > > > you've a bunch of people saying "I've implemented this in > > > production, and X needs to be Y", then that is a very hard > > > argument to beat. I didn't mean that. I think arguments need to be founded on technical justifications; claims of results backed by open, reproducible data. What I meant was that the "rough" in "rough consensus" is that non-implementor complaints shouldn't carry as much weight if all the implementors agree; you should listen to non-implementors and make sure that the agreement is based on technical judgment and not entirely on market or legacy considerations. I have (unfortunately) been in working group meetings where none of the implementers were present. Even if EVERYONE agrees, EVERYONE hums yes, I wouldn't call it "rough consensus", because the real implementors weren't there. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net