Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

If the original reason was ONLY tie-breaking, there would not have 
needed to be 3, 1 would have been sufficient.
In the two house mode, with various thresholds, often not 50%, it is 
not clear that tie-breaking is a major issues. So perhaps we should 
stop using that reason.
Alan

At 24/07/2008 06:57 AM, philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:


> Avri, your tenancity to 3 nom com defies all logic.
>
> Today here are 3 to tie break the current structure.
> Tomorrow there may be a number X to tie break that structure.