> As I noted in my review of the draft, the document has a core flaw in > its sense of history. It has invented an interpretation of "rough > consensus" that was not part of its original formulation. > > I consider the current focus on reconciling minority views to be quite an > excellent enhancement to that original interpretation, but it really is an > addition.
Ok. I was not there at the time to witness the history. Thanks for the clarification. Jari
