directory authority/authorities need(s) updating?

[Dominik Schaefer]

Scott Bennett schrieb:
> The latest consensus file appears to have 0.2.0.18-alpha listed as
> a recommended server version, but not 0.2.0.16-alpha or 0.2.0.17-alpha,
> even though it still lists 0.2.0.11-alpha, 0.2.0.12-alpha, and
> 0.2.0.15-alpha.  Also, the individual status documents are still in
> considerable disagreement with each other.  Are the directory authority
> operators getting careless?
Mhmm. I think, 16-alpha missed a file in the release and 17-alpha had a huge 
memory leak, I think, it is sane no to recommend them.
18-alpha is different, but it is quite new, I would not be surprised if it is 
recommended not until a few days in the wild, but I don't know the policy 
about that.