Re: P1788: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure open for VOTE
Nate and all,
Your vote of 'NO' has been recorded. Baker's 'open for VOTE' message said
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.
I take that you have done the third.
Once the voting concludes, if the motion fails, you and Dominique (or anyone else) should propose an alternative.
If the motion passed, you and Dominique may move and second a revision.
The intent is not to cut off debate, but to adapt practices of a face-to-face meeting to this asynchronous email format. In a face-to-face meeting, once the chair says, "All in favor say 'Aye,'" discussion is over. Discussion and amendment comes before the vote, not during. If one dislikes the motion, one votes, "No," and offers an alternative when voting concludes.
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Haggerty Engineering #296
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
414-288-6599; -288-4400 (GasDay); -288-5579 (Fax)
Www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg
On 3/7/09 7:46 AM, "R. Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------