[AFS3-std] chairs?

[David Boyes]

> If we have rules for ourselves, we should follow them.
> If we don't need them, we shouldn't have them.
> If they're in the way, which they are, they should either be corrected
> or abandoned.

IMHO, this is the correction. We clearly did not anticipate one of the vote=
 counters flaking out and not reporting results. I think Doug's call for co=
nsensus to accept the results as-is is a correction to deal with that probl=
em.=20

> The impression I get is that a few people are going to ratify the
> election because they want to.  Is this also how standards are going to
> be determined?  If so, I'm certainly not going to waste any time or
> effort participating, and that's what I mean by credibility.

While I have problems with the acceptance of modifications to code without =
formal specs or getting the details of the protocol pinned down as a baseli=
ne (as-is and future), I think in this case we are actually following the r=
ules in that we are attempting to govern by consensus. I would really like =
to see this stuff done and moving. I'm willing to pay for that if necessary=
, but the key point is to see this standardization process established and =
professionally run.=20

Tom's point about the backlog is a given. The authority to act on behalf of=
 the group needs to be formally established (especially given Doug/Hartmut'=
s employers) to give them some protection and justification for why they're=
 spending time on this. This is how we do it, and the conclusion of this en=
tire bit of political kabuki is long overdue. LONG over due.=20

-- db