Re: #1416
"Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In <[email protected]> "Frank Ellermann" <[email protected]> writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> Russ's vote for IR is cancelled out by my vote for IC >My enthusiasm for voting in technical questions is limited. >Harald noted elsewhere that the idea of humming is to find >rough consensus or its absence without counting. Here with >the very limited participation it is anyway not compelling. Voting, or rather "counting heads" will give an indication of rough consensus if there is a substantial majority one way or the other. If it is evenly balanced, then you are still stuck of course. But in this caase I think both Russ and I would be willing to accept a majority view if it was clear we had one. >But I do think that the Injection-Date in the approved RFC >represents a *possible* and plausible concept. Sure, but nobody is suggesting abandoning Injection-Date totally - it is just a matter of who is supposed to add it and when. As I just explained to Lisa, even Russ's version of #1416 is better than no version at all. It's just that I think Injection-Date will catch on more rapidly if we allow Injecting Agents to add it more-or-less always, in spite of the very rare risk that an occasional user might see the same article twice. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5