From 7210fc2c7c8a6fa6ba06a95053f367a63cd4bb19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Hahn Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 03:15:54 +0200 Subject: spelling fixes for proposals --- proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt') diff --git a/proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt b/proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt index e33d177..f813285 100644 --- a/proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt +++ b/proposals/165-simple-robust-voting.txt @@ -51,14 +51,14 @@ Proposed protocol design: A "Voting Set" is a set of authorities. Each authority has a list of the voting sets it considers acceptable. These sets are chosen - manually by the authority operators. they must always contain the + manually by the authority operators. They must always contain the authority itself. Each authority lists all of these voting sets in its votes. Authorities exchange votes with every other authority in any of their voting sets. - When it comes time to calculate a consensus, an authority votes with + When it is time to calculate a consensus, an authority votes with whichever voting set it lists that is listed by the most members of that set. In other words, given two sets S1 and S2 that an authority lists, that authority will prefer to vote with S1 over S2 whenever @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ Data format changes: implement the proposal), add this line to the consensus format as well, before the first dir-source line. [This information is not redundant with the dir-source sections in the consensus: If an - authority is recognized didn't vote, that authority will appear in + authority is recognized but didn't vote, that authority will appear in the voting-set line but not in the dir-source sections.] We don't need to list other information about authorities in our -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf