[AFS3-std] Second Draft of Standardisation Document

[Simon Wilkinson]

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.