Julian Mehnle wrote:
There is some amount of formality that is needed in order
to facilitate the successful work of a project that has just
grown more complex.
IMHO it's your (you = the council members) business how you
organize your votes, minutes, resolutions, and proceedings.
If you think that there will be votes where a sophisticated
system like Concordet is needed for _five_ council members,
and if that's possible in an IRC meeting, then fine, use it.
I very much doubt that it makes sense for _five_ votes, the
chair should outright reject such complex proposals. You're
not Tennessee. Received-SPF vs. Authentication-Results isn't
the same as Memphis vs. Nashville.
It was me who set up the Council Thingy as a resource for
the council to keep the community informed about its work.
Yes, it's nice, and you got a commendation for it. But the
super-secret subcommittee business again wasted time which
should be used for SPF. The most important issue for weeks,
Wayne's letter to Ted, wasn't even mentioned.
you have not even tried to understand it.
You need some background in math. to understand it, the case
A > B, B > C, and C > A sounds like graph theory for me. If
Concordet says A, and Wayne says VETO, Concordet loses. sorry,
but engineering isn't democracy.
please bear with us (the council) while we set up some basic
things that we consider necessary for the council's and the
project's smooth future operation.
Try to spend some time on SPF in your meetings, like the HELO
decision in your first meeting. How about a decision to submit
a draft schlitt-02 as is with all known bugs and open problems.
Then let "us" here (or in spf-develop) do the fine tuning. You
could also call it mengwong-02. And I've seen in another draft
that _three_ authors are possible (at least for drafts).
Bye, Frank