I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely).  

I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced.  You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2).  That seems like a coming together in this particular instance.

Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions.  I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be.  

I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements.  Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses.  There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with.  There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree.  If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement.  Philosophically, that's not my style.  The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed."  We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place.  In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front.

Greg