[AFS3-std] (no subject)

[Jake Thebault-Spieker]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz+@cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> * Section 2.2.2:
>  With regard to eligibility, I think rather than "subscribed as of X",
>  it might be better to do something involving both actual participation
>  and a period of time.  For example, a requirement that someone have
>  made a substantive post sometime in the previous 18 months, where
>  "substantive" means something which is part of an on-topic technical
>  discussion (including just expressing support for a proposal, but not
>  organizational issues), and is determined by the vote-taker subject to
>  appeal.

To what end? If "substantive" is determined by the vote-taker, this
requires not only scouring of the mailings over the last 18 months,
and is also relatively subjective. Yes, there could be a loose
definition of "substantive", where the vote-taker follows what he/she
deem to be under these guidelines, but even then, the guidelines are
open to interpretation.

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, I do feel however that
attempting to explicitly define something that may or may not be
easily defined could lead to interpretation problems. Just my $0.02.

-- 
Jacob Thebault-Spieker
Cell: (320) 288-6412