Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
> I suspect the fate of this RFC with be a "veto", and it will get just as
> ignored as if it had never existed.
I would argue there exists an important difference between a 'veto'
ignore, and a 'retracted' ignore.
A 'retracted' ignore mea
Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
> This is *exactly* why I suggested that the RFC be renamed and try to
> work within the constraints of keeping POD. In doing so, it could add
> really useful input. Otherwise, it will likely be ignored just like it
> was retracted now. And
