> I don't have context on this other than the linked page, but if what he's saying is accurate, it does seem pretty damning and corrupt, no? It's complicated.

> I don't have context on this other than the linked page, but if what he's saying is accurate, it does seem pretty damning and corrupt, no? It's complicated. You'd have to know the rules and read the list archives, and make up your own mind. DJB might be overselling it, so you really do have to check it yourself. I think the WG chair had enough cover to make the call they made. What _I_ would have done is do a WG consensus call on the underlying controversial question once the controversy started, separate from the consensus call on adopting the work item. But I'm not the chair.