I wrote the synopsis, in which I was careful not to state that it was
a WG document. I believe it was accurate for what it said although
it's very brief. I discussed explicitly with the IESG during the
IESG tele-conference calls that there was some lengthy debate and
disagreement over certain mechanisms in the draft.
Lisa
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 6/26/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/26/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your reading might differ from others'.
I've read a lot of these, so I know this synopsis differs others.
Usually they stuff like "WG is OK with this." It's perfectly natural
to question and appropriate things that seem out of the ordinary.
er, a little steamed here, that's not English.
It's perfectly natural to question whether things that seem out of the
ordinary are appropriate.
Anyway, you don't seem to have accurate answers on the process when it
doesn't match the outcome you're looking for.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
