On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered! Please state calmly and clearly what important aspects were not considered. ie On <date> I said <whatever> and the WG said <whatever2>. IMO the issues I raised in <whatever> were not considered because <whatever2>. Here's the proof: <whatever3>. IMO the consensus determination of the WG co-chairs is therefore flawed because <whatever4>. Please do not try to revisit previous discussion threads about the proposal. We're past that point. The discussion phase of the PDP is over. We're now at the stage of assessing if the consensus determination is valid or not. If you think that's not valid, please present evidence to support that opinion. That does not mean restating the issues you raised in the discussion phase. We're no longer discussing these in the context of the current proposal. Or shouldn't be doing that now. You are of course welcome to put forward a new policy proposal which reflects your earlier concerns. You can do that irrespective of whether the current proposal gets adopted or not.
