RE: [security-jc] RE: Question on the meaning of JC votes...

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: [security-jc] RE: Question on the meaning of JC votes...

 
> Rather than calling the votes procedural or coordination, we could
> consider them as 1) those that apply only to the JC and 2) those that
> are recommendations to the member TCs.

I agree that this is a better principle on which to base the distinction. Whether it will be easy to draw this distinction in practice, remains to be seen.

> Those votes that are recommendations to the TCs should request their
> input, and perhaps also their assent to be bound by the decision.
> Obviously this assent would take at least two weeks, or
> perhaps a month
> or so for the TC to consider the issue and agree to abide by the
> recommendation. And this type of JC recommendation may not have much
> weight unless it is unanimously accepted by all of the member TCs.

I completely agree with this.

Hal