Hello,

I am sorry, I should say that some people definitely misinterpreted my words.

And probably not only mines

I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached.

I am not sure that I want to spend time to fill a formal appeal, however, may be.

Thanks for your considerations,

Géza


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg <immo.ripe@be.free.de> wrote:
Gert wrote:
> Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions
> following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows:
[...]
>  - statements of "we do not have consensus"
>      (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous
>       Remco Van Mook)

I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have
consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not
objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now.

Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place.

Immo