Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

At 12:18 PM 12/20/99 , you wrote:
>I hate to argue with you, but you did not include the 3 abstentions in 
>calculating the consensus.  There were 67 votes.  In order to have the 2/3 
>majority you need to meet your definition of rough consensus, you would 
>need 44.666 (rounded to 45) votes.  It looks like you are, in fact ,one 
>vote shy of reaching rough consensus.

Hi Rita,

I privately told Jon that my personal position is in favor
of doing something, and that my "vote" can be regarded as
fostering anything that has that effect.

best,
tony