> On Jul 28, 2020, at 13:55, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@pmjones.io> wrote: > > Now, it may be that #[] or <<>> or something else actually is "better" in > some sense that cannot be articulated. But if there are no existing technical > hurdles to be overcome with the already-voted-on-and-accepted solution of @@, > what technically compelling reason can there be to revote?
IMO, there is no compelling reason to revote other than the fact that we have no process for what to do in this situation. However, given that we used ranked-choice voting in the last RFC, the logical choice (to me) seems to be: choose the runner-up in the event that the winner is disqualified. So, if there are extenuating circumstances that result in `@@` being disqualified, we should automatically default to the runner-up in the ranked-choice outcome. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
