Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Note the consensus and make the decision authoritative, so we can refer back to it, and update the previous examples to comply with the decision.
It's late. This sentence came out wrong. I meant to say: Let's see if we can reach a consensus on the majority of these alternatives. Write down what that consensus is for all non-controversial proposals, so we can refer back to it and start writing authoritative examples with these decisions in mind. Formally, I like to use the OGF to discuss the examples, make sure they are clear, and understand where there are still improvements to make (either in current or new alternative proposals), than go through the controversial examples on the mailing list and phone calls in the next weeks and see if we can reach formal "WG consensus" on the mailing list by April. I like to make sure that the folks who can't make it to Oxford still have their say in it. That at least is the plan. I'm sure the interaction with the NSI folks will spur some new ideas and proposals. :) See you in a few days, Freek