Clarify that designation of a profile requires a ballot of the specification committee

[waynebeaton]

The "Specification" section does not make who is required to vote clear. The passage just says that a super-majority is required, but it doesn't say of what body:

A Specification that aggregates other Specifications by reference may be designated as a Profile. Profiles do not have to be arranged in unique subsets (i.e. a Specification may appear in more than one Profile). A Super-majority, including a Super-majority of the Strategic Members of the Working Group, is required to approve a Profile Specification. A Specification Committee may, at its discretion, elect to label one or more Profiles as a “Platform”.

The "Approvals" section does indicate that a super-majority of the Specification Committee is required.

Both sections are clear that "this Super-majority must include a Super-majority of Strategic Members of the Working Group".

We have two choices:

1. Remove the highlighted text; or
2. Update the highlighted text to start with "A Super-majority of the Specification Committee".

I'm leaning toward #2. In either case, let's add a link to the "Approvals" section.

[starksm64]

The Specification Committee/Approvals section already states that the specification committee is responsible for approving by super majority all profile specification. The specification section should remove anything about approvals and simply define what a profile specification is to avoid duplication of ideas.