On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 18:54, Aaron Ballman <aaron_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > In other words, I think the problem was caused much earlier, by making the
> > specific attributes' specifications the way they are. I don't think
> > this clarification
> > has an actual normative effect.
>
> Okay, that's a fair point -- this resolution doesn't make that
> situation any worse, thank you for correcting that!

No problem. I contemplated whether the motion needs to be opposed, but
I don't think that's entirely
appropriate, since it's not a change in direction towards something
more problematic. We (meaning you
and I) will need to write a paper for the Issaquah meeting, and if
that fails, consider a DIS ballot
comment, and if that fails too, well, then you may need to
deliberately be non-conforming if that's
what it comes to.