> > ... > > > Sorry, I can't understand this. Can't you say things more simply? > > > > If yes, (versioning) then the working docs delta, for example, a scope rule > > may be required, this was [35] in the requirements draft, versions 4, and > > [30] in versions 5 and 6, so that scopes may be associated with versions. > > I feel it necessary to point out that versioning of ACE algorithms is not > part of any documented proposal, and it introduces even more problems than > reordering does. > > The options that were put forward were: > - a fixed ACE algorithm (provisionally AMC-Z) with reordering, > - a fixed ACE algorithm (provisionally AMC-Z) without reordering. > > If anyone wants to propose any other option, they should write a detailed > spec for it. Otherwise, it is the chairs' responsibility to interpret the > consensus of the group as supporting exactly one of these two options > (subject to the RFC 2026 appeals process, of course).
So in your mind, a strawpoll is a consensus call?
