[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C )

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C )
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:52:47 -0700
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
References: <s7e61a5c.025@gw1.rspab.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

one measures consensus by counting heads or whatever.  i was under the
impression that the last count was quite non-consensual.  did i miss
something?

randy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
  - From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
- Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>

References:
- The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C )
  - From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>

Prev by Date: [wg-c] Re: Status of our TLD request?
Next by Date: RE: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C )
Prev by thread: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
Next by thread: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread