[All Lists] [By Thread] [By Date] [Previous] [Next]
From: R. Feldman
Subject: Token opacity
Date: 18 Sivan 5782
Subject: Committee status
The chair must report to the committee on where we stand.
We are divided. Rav Halevi proposes definitions. R. Nachmani opposes. The Rebbetzin observes that opacity is itself a position. Devorah and Ben-Ari testify that opacity harms outsiders. Reb Kovacs expresses uncertainty.
I do not believe a vote would produce consensus. I believe it would produce a narrow margin that would satisfy no one.
The specification will proceed with opacity as currently drafted. This is not because opacity is correct. It is because changing it requires agreement we do not have.
The committee acknowledges:
1. Opacity benefits those whose meanings are already established 2. Opacity may burden those seeking recognition 3. This is a known limitation, not a feature
If future versions of the specification address this, they will do so with fuller understanding than we have achieved.
—Yaakov Feldman, Chair
Thread: