>let's look for consensus on the meta-issue: should this document
>be a rtgwg work item? ...
>I'll evaluate WG consensus on June 22.
Boy, does time fly. After a burst of discussion, I see several
proponents of it becoming a WG document, and none against. It's
clear that the document needs some work, at least in some peoples'
opinion, and that we should be careful about scoping this against
future work -- but that's why it's a WG document, to get it to
reflect the WG's work.
Rtgwg mailing list