rich1.0Rob1Ham wroteRob1Ham (npub1em…ac9aw)https://nostr.now/npub1emdtsxly9m68m00x206t574jttp65vk0c2m89ms038q047yz7ylqcac9awnjumphttps://nostr.nowImportant to call out Dathon Ohm is now lying (misleading?) the consensus process by removing the rejected langauge about a reactive activation method, but may have to employ it anyway?
It'll get circulated once the new proposal comes out, deceit is not how you build rough consensus.
nevent1qqszllafk56y6mwwch9w3eu6u48dzn0wrmfdynlftlrhky3uy56tu8c0c6dc5