Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> I hate to argue with you, but you did not include the 3 abstentions 

While I don't agree with your reason, I do agree that the vote was close,
too close to the 2/3 mark - one more "No" vote would have changed the
2/3-ness.

And I think we ought to remember that at least one set of people voted
"NO", but as one vote rather voting as individuals, than because they
worked for the same company, AT&T.  (I think they did the right thing and
do thank them for the constructive public spirit that that action
represented.)

So before we start more internecene (and unproductive) warfare, I'm
willing to accept a ruling that the vote was too close to call.

That said -- there were a lot of "NO"s based on the notion of
"safeguards".  I obviously don't understand and I'd like to be educated
about the concerns.

(Personally I'd rather go with simple majority voting rather than
"consensus" but that's another thread.)

		--karl--