On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Geoffrey Romer <gromer@google.com> wrote:

I agree. However, I'd rather discuss it in a way that focuses on the technical merits of the proposal (rather than the meta-level question of what form and degree of consensus the proposal has), and in a way that avoids calling the integrity of other committee members into question.

That would be nice, but I have to make my plenary objection as strong as my technical objection, and IMO degree of consensus is on-topic for the latter.

The wiki notes indicate there was also a (short) Friday discussion on this paper.  Is this true (I wasn't in the room), or is it just a cut/paste error?  The final poll implies it was a separate discussion (far fewer votes), and I would have made it my business to be in the room for it had I known the discussion would continue.
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com>  +1-847-691-1404