Jim Fenton wrote: > Appendix A. > > Since the list of names here is likely to be interpreted as an > endorsement of this draft, I request that my name be removed.
Jim, That's certainly your choice to make, but I hope you'll change your mind. I'm responding publicly in order to suggest that the working group has had a continuing difficulty with reactions to strong debate and resistance to rough consensus decisions. It is entirely possible to have strong disagreement that is constructive, rather than divisive, and I keep hoping that the DKIM working group can find its way to the former, from the latter. Over the years, I've lost vastly more of these kinds of debates than I've won. As long as the process was full, frank and honest, then I feel that's the best one should hope for. If a view that I disagree with develops rough consensus at that point, then I think the community need has been well served. Diversity ensures serious analysis. IMO, /that/ is the community need, as input to a decision. I view the Acknowledgements section as an indication of the breadth of contribution, not the depth of agreement. You have most certainly contributed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
