Tim Bray wrote:
PaceDateModified: No consensus. Close it.
No consensus either way, but I'd strongly urge the group to close it. [I've seen no compelling case made that we have any business specifying user behaviour in this fashion.]
PaceErrVerb + PaceServiceErr: No consensus, but not decisively rejected. Put them on the revisit list and recommend that those in favor rework a bit based on the discussion.
+1
PacePersonConstruct: I think (but feel free to shout me down) that we have rough consensus that this is a good idea, that its name could be improved, and that it belongs in atom:entry, not "Person Constructs". If people feel that's roughly right, I'd be happy to trust Rob and MNot's editorial judgment to figure out how to work that consensus into the draft.
+1
cheers Bill
