Re: How do we proceed next ?
Sylvain,
Have you considered Motion 2?
Motion 2 is in its discussion period, but there
has been no formal discussion yet. Motion 2 deals
with the structure of the overall document, by
proposing a skeletal outline. The discussion period
began on February 2, and ends on February 23. However,
since this was concurrent with voting on Motion 1,
this might have caused confusion. Also, February 23
here is the middle of the Mardi Gras ("Carnival") holiday
here, and two of my sisters and daughter are visiting
from the North. For these reasons, I propose extending
the discussion period until March 2.
We COULD use the Vienna proposal, as is, as a starting
point. However, the proposal in Motion 2, basically
structure without content, is closer to the structure
of 754R. Thus, we DO need to discuss.
I repeat Motion 2 here:
===Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure===
Proposer: John Pryce
Seconder: required
===Motion text===
The P1788 Working Group adopts the principles set out in
sections 1 and 2 of Position Paper PP008, "A proposed structure
for the process of constructing the P1788 standard".
===Rationale===
For a rationale, please read Section 1 of the position paper.
The paper is available on the P1788 web site.
Note that this is a vote on principles, NOT on the detail in the
following section 3 and appendix. P1788 members may see various
defects of commission or omission in those, and are asked to
point them out, as a separate issue from this motion.
=====
Sincerely,
Baker
P.S. A listing of motions and their status can be found
in the private area of http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/
If you do not have a password to this area, please
contact me.
On 2/20/2009 7:48 AM, Sylvain Pion wrote:
I am a bit puzzled about how we should proceed now.
Probably the officers need to propose a working plan,
otherwise I feel the discussion not really focussed,
and arguments get rehashed.
Now that the preliminary motion concerning the editor's
preference has passed, my view was something like :
we next vote on accepting the Vienna proposal as the initial
working document, and then we focus the debate on each
separate point, in order to reach agreement by voting
on each of these points, if there are proposals to change
things compared to the current draft.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------