On 7 Aug 2019, at 12:39, Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de<mailto:cmbecke...@gmx.de>> wrote:
As I understand it, this RFC has been put to vote again, because the first version had some problematic details, and by courtesy to cater to the clamor raised after the voting had finished. That is correct. There was an inconsistency with the Voting RFC in the voting options, and the RFC (as it passed) also had catastrophic implications for upgrades - so it could not be implemented as it was written. Zeev
