Justin's proposed changes.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

At 1:47 PM -0800 1/28/97, Raymundo Vega Aguilar wrote:
>>
>>            I am for the motion.
>>            I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along.
>>            I am against the motion.
>>
>> If those three states were weighted 1, 0.5 and 0 then one could say that
>> consensus was reached when the sum of the voting states was greater than
>> 50% of the number of members. Thus, on a board with 6 members, if 1 member
>> is opposed to a motion and all others are willing to go along we have
>> a voting status equal to 5 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 2.5 which is
>> less than the total of 3.0 required. However, if one of those people
>> changed to support the motion the voting state would be
>> 1 * 1 + 4 * 0.5 + 1 * 0 for a total of 3.0 which passes the motion.
>
>This is voting with a few more bits of resolution.
>
>Raymundo.

Given the policy of restricting ARIN to IPv4, clearly voting must not
involve more than 32 bits of resolution.