A note on procedure Re: Vote on Motion 5
Martin and P1788,
Please observe my inserted comment.
Baker
Maarten van Emden wrote:
.
.
.
(2) it is apparently considered time to vote on the content of
Vienna 3.11, my preferred version of Motion 5 is not to adopt the
document "Arithmetic operations for intervals" by Ulrich Kulisch
but instead to modify (for the need of this, see below) Vienna 3.11
as follows:
.
.
.
I note that, according to our agreed upon rules, advancing something to
a vote requires
it first be made as a formal motion, then seconded. A three-week email
discussion
period ensues, after which comes the three-week formal voting
procedure. Anyone
in P1788 (registered with IEEE) may put forward a motion, and any
so-registered
individual may second it. This could be done with the entire Vienna
proposal, but
hasn't (at least so far). However, in my estimation, the entire Vienna
proposal is
all-encompassing, with parts of it possibly controversial and parts of
it not. Thus, if someone
wishes to put forward the Vienna proposal as-is, it may be wise to put
forward only
small parts as motions, and take it step-by-step.
A second note: Except for perhaps Motion 5, the motions so far have been
for guidance, and not actual standards text. Thus, although editorial
corrections
such as Vincent has recently proffered (e.g. "open parenthesis is
missing") are welcome
and useful, they will have a greater significance once we start voting
on the actual
wording in the standard.
Best regards to all,
Baker