Hiya, Thanks Robert. Good summary. On 02/09/15 15:20, Robert Sparks wrote: > > Several people expressed concern that it was not clear why > this change was proposed. The relevance of citing RFC20's > status change was questioned. The discussion resulted in > agreement to remove the mention of RFC20. The remaining > text should focus clearly on the motivations for making the > change. It was suggested to explicitly note in the > status-change document that this is an exceptional action, > but that it falls within the processes laid out by RFC2026. In case folks go looking, I didn't yet make the change to the status change document. I'll get that done Friday or over the weekend and send a mail here when it's done. (And specific text suggestions welcome offlist in the meantime.) Cheers, S.