Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure YES

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	I vote YES on this motion & share Baker's observations about
	the utility of association with 754-2008.

	Let me make an observation & a couple of cautions.

	First, those of you who are familiar with 754-1985 but not
	754-2008 should know that the new standard contains optional
	support for arbitrary precision arithmetic.  So a vote for
	this proposal is not a vote against the use of arbitrary
	precision.

	Next, this proposal is organized as Levels with a capital L
	in much the same way as 754 was.  Let me caution you that the
	levels are intended as a guide & not a constraint.  In 754 we
	got trapped into endless & meaningless discussions as to
	exactly which level a given issue belonged.  We should avoid
	this trap.  An issue is an issue.  It doesn't matter if it
	fits in the level diagram or not.

	Finally, we are just beginning to attack this list in the ER
	subgroup.  I suspect our work may settle some issues & bring
	up new ones.  As has been mentioned, this structure should be
	considered as just that: A Structure.  The details may be
	considered a work in progress.

	Yours,

				Dan