>might preference would be just to pick one, and > provide a stick for hitting those who do it the other way.
I think that IESG is already using that stick :) AB On 1/9/13, Dean Willis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> but the question of >>> error in process is; does the RFC lack communication requirement with >>> the community? >>> >> >> Sorry if not clear. I mean that as some participant are requesting a >> scientific approach to struggling with 2119 (i.e. thread-subject), >> does that mean in some RFCs the use or not use (i.e. we see that >> participant use different approaches to follow the 2119) that it may >> add communication confuse with some of community? >> > > I'm absolutely certain that some of our community is confused about > something related to this thread. Given the absence of information that > would help in a decision, might preference would be just to pick one, and > provide a stick for hitting those who do it the other way. > > -- > Dean > > >
