Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: P1788: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure open for VOTE

I'll second the first amendment proposed by Dominique Lohez (included below).

Reason:
The current motion I think is good, but it also makes a false assumption about the modal intervals. For example, it says that the proposed level structure is sufficient to consider Kahan intervals but not Kaucher (modal) intervals. This is not correct, so it sets a precedent that I don't believe is accurate.
The real question going forward is not about if the level structure supports the modal intervals (it does), but are modal intervals going to be supported as a datatype in the standard or not, etc. In this sense, they deserve at least the same consideration as Kahan intervals and mid-rad intervals, etc. 

So I would vote "NO" as it currently stands.

However, I would vote "YES" if these statements were removed or corrected, e.g., if the following amendment proposed by Dominique Lohez was made:

-------------------------------------------

I suggest that keeping the same general structure with the following
addition

A level 1' is added
         This level    should become the interface  to conceptors of
agorithms instead of level 1 since it describe the different views of
level 1
including

         *The Vienna proposal intervals
          *The Kaucher's interval and the modal intervals
           *The Kahan's intervals
            *May be The midpoint radius model

From this point of  view the objets of level 1'  are deduced from
object of level 1 fy focusing the attention on some specific features
Conversely objet of level 1 are deduced from the objets of level 1 by
some integration of features

The extra level is not numbered 0 since objects of level 1 are are
derived from the objects of the extra level.

On the other hand objects of levels 2 and following are derived from
objects of level 1 and not from level 1'

IMHO, it should not to an overloaded and the unsable standard.

In contrast it might make the thing more simple, due to a deeper
understanding of interval  arithmetic

--------------------------------------------------

Sincerely,

Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC




----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:31 AM
Subject: P1788: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure open for VOTE



P1788 working group members

I hereby open the stated motion for voting, until March 28.
(Although Dominique Lohez proposed two changes or amendments,
these were not seconded, so they have not been included.)

I am following our voting tabulator's (George Corliss) suggestion
for procedure for processing of position papers, as follows:

During the voting period, the motion is not subject to amendment.
A registered Voting Member may vote
      "Yes"
      "No"
      "No," but propose an amendment that would cause the voter to
         vote "Yes."  The proposed amendment shall include detailed
         wording and rationale.  Such "No" votes on position papers
         are NOT motions to amend.  The purpose is to influence
         other voters.
 Of course, anyone may make any statements they wish, but those are not
 votes.

All votes on position papers will be public.
The mechanism for voting is a
message broadcast to stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  The ideal vote is

Subject: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure   YES (or NO)
Body: YES (or NO and proposed changes)
Name

A registered Voting Member may change her/his vote at any time during the
voting period simply by broadcasting a fresh voting message.

A registered Voting Member is NOT removed from the roster for not voting,
as
is the case for not voting on the proposed standard itself.

A position paper requires a "Yes" vote by 2/3 of the registered Voting
Members to pass.  A quorum is 2/3 of the registered Voting Members.  If
necessary to achieve a quorum, the Voting Tabulator may solicit further
votes, in which case, all not-yet-voted registered Voting Members shall be
solicited equally.

The entire procedure (from proposal of the position paper to
final adoption)  will soon be posted at the official P1788
web site, at

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/

For convenience, I append the motion.  If you have not
retained a copy of the actual position paper, it can be
found in the private area of the above web site.  If you
need the user ID and password for the private area, please
send me an email.

Sincerely,

R. Baker Kearfott
Acting Chair, P1788
===============================================================

===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.
=====
===============================================================

--

---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------