While I don't believe the WG would be positive on that, I do not believe that question has been put to a consensus call. So I would question the word specifically. If you still believe it so, please tell me when you think the WG decided this. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: 28 November 2013 17:03 > To: Dave Crocker > Cc: rtcweb-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eliot Lear; > rtcweb@xxxxxxxx; Eric Burger; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb > > On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the > > impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any > > mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it > works against > > the outcome they prefer. > > The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group > specifically chose not to do a coin toss. So "willing to > settle for any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case. > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >