Merge a PR only with explicit implementor consensus (followup)

[saschanaz]

See the discussion in #197 (comment). It has Agenda+ but in a closed PR, so I'm opening a new issue to make things a bit more clear.

[annevk]

I strongly agree that we shouldn't make changes to the specification without agreement. Especially here where there was very clearly opposition. That doesn't make any sense.

[snianu]

Sorry for the confusion. Our intent was just to document browser behaviors so that all browsers can be spec-compliant, and not force a particular implementation. We discussed this and #206 issue in the EditingWG meeting and came to a consensus. Consensus was to incorporate the proposed changes to the spec, but with minor editorial and non-normative updates, which we will be making.

[snianu]

Minutes
saschanaz: pr landed to spec without consensus
saschanaz: we need to ensure pr has consensus from 2 different implementations
6:52 PM edgar: and standards positions aren't resolved
6:53 PM smaug: right now we can fix the issue by doing what we agreed on 206
6:54 PM pr 197 was merged without consensus and that will be fixed in issue 206
6:54 PM smaug: we should avoid landing PRs without consensus
6:55 PM sanketj_: point taken

[zcorpan]

The WHATWG PR template separates "At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):" from "Implementation bugs are filed:". Maybe something like that could help here?