On 19 Apr 2005, at 18:27, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
So I call for a real open vote on the issue.
You don't need to call for a vote, just ask the chairs/editors who keep track of such matters, about the particular specification.
Well we need some objective way to tell what the consensus is. Going from your or my recollection does not seem to help, since by reading this list we end up with completely
different points of view on where the consensus is.
If you can point out to me my recollection of the consensus on that issue is incorrect, then do so. Beyond that, dark mutterings about corruption carry little weight with me.
We never had a vote so what can I point to? I could point to some people putting forward some
arguments and then others putting others forward. The reason we have arguments is in order
to convince someone, so how do I know what the consensus is at the end of the argument? People
may have changed their position throughout the argument, especially if there are highly intelligent people putting very good reasons forward.
On the issue of not allowing more than one entry per feed with the same id, I heard some
very bizaare reasons, such as there being a major problem with web architecture that nobody has
heard of. But is this a reason that has convinced anyone?
cheers Bill
