On 29 Aug 2008, at 20:17, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I think it is fine to designate the vote-taker(s) as breaking the
tie in the event there is no returning chair.
Separately, if we are going to give anyone a casting vote, we need
to be clear as to whether they also hold a normal vote.
I'd say that the vote-taker(s) as a body have a single casting vote.
Each vote taker individually may hold a normal vote, in the same way
as any other voter.
I greatly prefer this option over any of the others that have been
suggested. I'm very conscious of Ken's comments about complexity.
Whilst I believe that having a clear standardisation system in place
is valuable, not least because it quells some of the concerns about
the formation of the foundation, I'm _very_ keen that the system not
drown in complexity on its first day! Let's be very cautious of over
engineering.
Any dissenting views, before I update the document?
Simon.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
