The minutes of the meeting will be posted soon. You can draw your own conclusion on the "rough consensus" then.
But your objection to drop requirements is noted. ps: comparing criteria for wg i-ds and WG co-chairs proposed next step is apple and orange. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J. William Semich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document > James, > > Please compare your response to Ms. Ye, and your response to Mr. Semich. > > Ms. Ye's draft's "supporters" must meet a criteria. > Mssrs. Seng and Blanchett's rough consensus "commentors" need not. > > Even if Ms. Ye's draft was worth reading (IMO it is not, having done so), > and even if I'd blind faith in the intelligence, judgement, and humor of > Mssrs. Seng and Blanchett (I don't, and I get no pleasure from that), it > would still be a dubious proposition that either could offer anonymous > (and possibly ficticious) personas as being sufficient to meet either a > test for community interest (in a draft) or community consensus (in an act). > > If there really is consensus that "the IDN WG doesn't need any requirements" > or that "the requirements for the IDN are self-evident to the WG", or any > variation on the theme of "badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges", then > fine. So state and be done with it. > > Eric
