docs: federation: voters named at a remake, versions, what is uncovered

What the maintainer asked of the design:

* Who votes is named by the remake's proposal: all users at its base,
  as recommended, or a list. So those who vote say who votes next,
  and nobody votes by a rule of who created it. What that costs is
  said with it: every voter named counts toward what a decision
  takes, and all users is whoever brought users in.
* What a policy no longer covers is uncovered at once where the
  decision holds: shown aside by every node, taken away by its user
  only, changed by nobody, and dropped once it has been seen there
  for `uncovered` (a number; 0: at once). Within an epoch a rule
  moves nothing in the document; the remake moves it.
* Being seen takes nothing but a node that is up: its stamp is
  renewed about daily whatever else is written. A node left running
  keeps its voter present; naming the voters deals with that.
* A release of a vote is best effort.
* Continuum changing under a swarm: versions agree by what they
  compute, not by a number. Every stamp carries the digest of the
  snapshot its node would build there; a remake is taken up by the
  ID each node built; a node checks itself against the swarm before
  it writes with a new version; a change of the rules is a change of
  policy, and a node knows a policy by everything in it; recorded
  vectors every version passes. What can't change, what changes
  freely, and when it is a fork.
* Who may connect is outside the design; the swarm key is a note.

The attacks are 84.

future-work.md: several roots, present by the user's own signature, a
guide to moving to another swarm.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions