"Super-majority of the Strategic Members of the Working Group" doesn't work in the general case

[waynebeaton]

Moved from #24.

The EFSP it says "A Super-majority, including a Super-majority of the Strategic Members of the Working Group, is required to approve a Profile Specification.". The language refers to "Strategic Members of the Working Group". Not all working groups have Strategic Members, or an equivalent (AsciiDoc or MicroProfile, for example, only have one level of corporate membership).

That there is not necessary even an equivalent membership level to which we can map, I'm thinking that we should just yank this from the EFSP and leave it to individual working groups to add this as an extra requirement should they choose to do so.

What do you think @mmilinkov and @paulbuck ?

[mmilinkov]

One thought: we could remove that requirement from the EFSP and tell those working groups who want such an option to include similar wording in their specialization of the EFSP (e.g. JESP).

WDYT?

[waynebeaton]

One thought: we could remove that requirement from the EFSP and tell those working groups who want such an option to include similar wording in their specialization of the EFSP (e.g. JESP).

That's what I'd tried to express the second paragraph, so I'm in favour of it.

[waynebeaton]

After further discussion, I'm pulling this out of the draft.

Instead, I'm going to wordsmith it a bit ("Designation of a Specification as a Profile" instead of "A Profile Specification") and qualify the extra requirement.

Designation of a Specification as a Profile (this Super-majority must include a Super-majority of Strategic Members of the Working Group, when the Working Group has a notion of Strategic Member or equivalent);