On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 04:09:45PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote: > Hi, > > > Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I don't even participate in tools-discuss [...] > > I suspect not. They've already emailed me to say that these summaries are > in their Python codebase. > > The draft is there, and it is simple: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-modpod-summary/ > > There's nothing to disagree with. Maybe I used "should" instead of "must" > in a couple places. Well, since you asked, % When a summary becomes important enough for participants to object to % its absence, [...] Elsewhere in the doc you use "rough consensus and running code showing that a summary is regularly useful", which seems like the right criterion. I disagree with using unqalified "objections" of "participants" as the threshold for activity, since it is trivially subject to abuse. -Ben (with apologies for contributing the the growth in length of the thread)
