Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

["Mark Davis" <[e-mail]>]

This is crazy; we do not have consensus to introduce a major architectural
change from RFC4646.
Mark

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi -
>
> As WG co-chair...
>
> Ok, I've tallied the responses.  One was sent directly to me, rather
> than to the [e-mail] mailing list.  One was sent after the deadline.
> Here's the tally including those two:
>
> Q1: A-4 B-9 C-4
> Q2: A-8 B-5 C-4
>
> Excluding those two responses, it looks like:
> Q1: A-3 B-9 C-3
> Q2: A-7 B-5 C-3
>
> From this I'm concluding that we have a *rough* consensus to
> "reinstate" extlang.
>
> This was not an easy decision, and it was not undertaken lightly,
> particularly since we'd been working on the assumption that we'd
> polished of the extlang issue some months ago.
>
> However, with equal numbers objecting to each of the proposals,
> and a 2-to-1 preference for Q2 among those favoring a proposal,
> I think the sense of the WG is clear enough for us to move on.
>
> Randy
> ltru co-chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>



-- 
Mark

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru