Thank you. I’m basically happy with the statement as it is now. It’s not exactly where I thought I would come out, honestly. But if you look at it, it’s really pretty straightforward and does what it needs to do—by which I mean that it provides a concise, but I would say valuable, rationale for the decision. That has to include, and it does, something that’s forward looking a bit because obviously with the lags in policy we’re not just making decisions based on looking in the rearview mirror. I don’t think it’s too long. It’s only, if I counted this up right, seven sentences or something like that. That doesn’t strike me as excessively long. In fact, other things being equal, I would probably be in favor of adding to it rather than reducing it, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort based on my experience around this table in recent years. [Laughter] So I think it does what it should do and does it reasonably effectively. I have no inspirations, I guess, for how to improve it in any significant way. I do think it will continue to evolve just as the economy, the outlook for the economy, and the position of policy do. That’s inevitable.
As far as governance is concerned, I would prefer voting on the entire statement, but I don’t think that the current system is so badly broken that we absolutely, positively need to do something about it. But it seems as though we spend a fair amount of time on it, so I don’t know why we wouldn’t at the end of the day vote on it.