Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> > ...
> > > 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?