Alex Shinn scripsit:

> The rationale is why the voters voted the way they did, which can be
> determined by the discussions on the list, the proposals made, and any
> individual rationales they included in their ballots.

The fact that people concur in a result doesn't mean they concur in the
rationale.  If you look at U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there are only
two results (affirm or reverse), but it may happen that no one opinion
(rationale) commands a majority, or even a plurality, of the justices
who voted for the majority result.  We cannot, on the basis of the sort
of evidence you mention, construct post hoc rationales and assert that
they are the views of the WG.

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports