RE: Procedural correction Re: Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation: Voting period officially begins
I vote "yes".
Mike Schulte
> IEEE P1788 working group members:
>
> In my announcement of yesterday (appended here), I said
> to cast your votes by sending them to george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> However, we had agreed that, although George will tabulate
> the votes, voting on position papers may be public. That
> is, you may cast your formal vote by sending it to
> stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I apologize for the mixup.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ralph Baker Kearfott
> (acting chair, P-1788)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> IEEE P1788 working group members:
>
> I hereby officially open the voting period on our first motion.
> The voting period will continue for three weeks, until
> 2009/02/13/23:59GMT. I remind you that you should be
> registered officially at the IEEE web site to vote. (We will
> help you do this if our vote tabulator determines you are not.)
> You should send your vote to George Corliss at:
>
> george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The formal rules are, if you vote "No," you should state
> the reasons and the changes that, if made to the document,
> would cause you to vote "Yes."
>
> Since this motion is just a position paper, it is governed
> by 10.1 and 10.5 of our policies and procedures, namely,
> it will pass by a simple majority. A quorum is determined
> by 10.4 of our policies and procedures document.
>
> I append the actual motion, along with the proposer's Rationale.
> (Although there was some discussion, no substantive amendments
> were formally proposed, so the motion upon which we are voting
> is the one originally stated.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> R. Baker Kearfott
> (acting chair, P1788)
> ===============================================================
>
> Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation
> Proposer: J D Pryce
> =====
> The P1788 standard will initially use the notation proposed in
> the paper "Standardized notation in interval analysis" by R.B.
> Kearfott, M.T. Nakao, A. Neumaier, S.M. Rump, S.P. Shary, and P.
> van Hentenryck, available at
> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers.html
>
> This notation will be open to amendment after sufficient
> experience of using it.
>
> The standard will include a copy of the above paper (as possibly
> amended) in an appendix.
> =====
>
> ==Rationale==
> As that paper itself says, interval notation is somewhat
> fragmented at present. Here is the view of some experts who have
> thought hard about this issue. We can do great service to
> interval computation for many years ahead by helping to
> disseminate their recommended practice, and following it
> ourselves.
>
> Rather than spend preliminary time debating whether we want to
> amend the proposed standard notation, I think it is more
> fruitful for us all to accept it as it is for now, and accept
> the discipline of following its notation for future position
> papers. In due course, either we are satisfied we can accept it
> permanently, or some of us are so annoyed by its perceived
> deficiencies that we have some constructive changes to make.
>
> The motion does not say that all position papers SHALL use this
> notation. I just strongly recommend this, so we get experience
> of using it.
> =====
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
>
>
>
>