Closed eriktaubeneck closed 1 year ago
@martinthomson seems I've mixed up "soft consensus" with "rough consensus", but even then, looking at the definition from the IEFT, it doesn't seem appropriate here.
My intent was the capture (and to have a place to continue to document) assumptions that can help the editors proceed, and not imply any final commitment. Let me rephrase this.
Those suggestions would resolve my concern.
thanks for the review @martinthomson. suggestions applied.
added the feedback above, which included renaming and moving. I also added a quick link to this doc from the README in the design-dimension directory.
cc @csharrison and @bmayd. I'm planning to merge by EOD, but let me know if you have any more concerns. (We can always open new PRs too.)
A document to capture the items that we've reached soft consensus on, and to allow for other folks who weren't in attendance to provide input.
cc @AramZS @seanturner