Here's my take on the discussion so far. And I want to stress that I am not a policy editor, and to the extent that they read the discusssion differently than I do, their reading controls.
* Russ and I would be willing to accept either outcome--either you can collapse years or you cannot. * Holder, you and I would prefer that you be able to collapse years. * Sean would prefer that you not be able to collapse years. He hasn't said whether his objection is strong enough to try and block consensus. * I think there is a strong consensus that we want to make a change along the lines of one of your patches. * I don't think anyone in the discussion so far would object to your second patch. However, a majority of the participants might prefer your first patch. Sean might object to that, and Russ might potentially think we haven't yet gotten enough showing of support to go that direction. This is one of those awkward situations in consensus decision making where you have to decide whether you're going to take the option everyone can live with or do a bit more work and possibly get an answer that the community overall supports (even though some people do not). What we should definitely avoid doing is losing energy and making no change at all. --Sam
