[rfc-i] verifying where we do/don't have consensus

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 31 10:05:55 PDT 2012



On 5/31/2012 8:52 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> By "consensus", do you mean "unanimous agreement"?I see a number of issues on your list marked as "no consensus" where 
there was broad agreement with one or two people loudly and repeatedly 
disagreeing.

I don't think we've heard from anywhere near enough people to determine 
consensus - broad or otherwise - on anything at all.

There are also some items on the list marked as 'consensus' that those 
posting have disagreed on - notably:

in the RFC-Archive step:
Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones
(I'm assuming this does NOT refer to the RFC-Editor's need to modify 
submissions during their process)

in end consumption:
Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones

Also, "Want the ability to semantically tag some document info, at least 
authors' names and references" should be added to the items in 
RFC-Archive and End-consumption.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list