Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > > This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with > > Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that > > task. > > Cool. All we need is the other sponsors to agree (though I > agree with the rationale behind the change, I do not feel strongly > enough to have to go through and campaign for a new set of sponsors; > if 5 of the original sponsors agree to the changes, I'll put them > in).
speaking only for myself, of course, i believe that such a change would lend clarity to the proposal. i cannot say that i _would_ second such a proposal, because i still feel that the mucking about with Condorcet/ Cloneproof SSD to do double duty is less than ideal. unfortunately, i have no good ideas as to how to ``solve'' this ``problem.'' no one else either cares, or has any ideas either. -john
