I agree with Joel. The current recommendation is RRG's Chairs recommendation and not RRG's recommendation.
This should be clearly said in the final document. Luigi On Mar 26, 2010, at 22:21 , Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would have to disagree slightly. > I do not believe that you can represent this as the recommendation of the > Research Group. > The document can be published as an RRG RFC with a recommendation from the > chairs of the RRG. But the conclusion (whether I agree or disagree with it) > is not the recommendation of the RRG. > > Yours, > Joel > > > Tony Li wrote: >>>>> the recommendation of the [chairs of the] RRG >>>> IFYP. >>> ? >> I grep'ed for that and came up with things that didn't make sense. I >> suspect that Noel meant "IF You Please". >> While there is no argument that this is not a consensus based >> recommendation, IRTF outcomes are not required to be consensus based. So >> while Noel's amended version is correct, the original is also correct. >> Just so we're all clear, I'm very disappointed that we were unable to make >> further progress in reaching consensus. >> Tony >> _______________________________________________ >> rrg mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
