Re: Motion P1788/M0006.04_Level_2_Multi-format NO
Exchanges like this suggest I remind everyone that our Policies and Procedures ALLOW MULTIPLE VOTES.
That is, if you vote on a motion, and subsequent discussion changes your mind, YOU MAY VOTE AGAIN. That is why we encourage "NO" votes to explain what it would take to get them to vote "Yes." IEEE wants to drive as close to a consensus in the community as possible.
The last vote I receive is the one that counts, so each member still gets only one vote. The intent is to promote open exchanges of ideas, permitting discussion during voting to change people's minds.
Voting is open on Motions 5 (until 10 Sept.), 6 (until 15 Sept.), and 7 (until 21 Sept.).
George Corliss, P1788 Voting Tabulator (aka Vote Nag)
On 9/7/09 8:46 AM, "Vincent Lefevre" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-09-07 09:46:46 +0200, Frédéric Goualard wrote:
> My vote is NO because the associated position paper definitely
> assumes---even if peripherally---the implicit (e.g., [-oo, -oo] and
> [+oo, +oo] have no meaning, which should make them NaIs, whatever
> that object is) or explicit existence of NaIs, a concept I am not in
> favour of.
This is not what the paper says. "No meaning" currently implies
undefined behavior, not the existence of some form of NaI.
Having to deal with such meaningless representations could
imply performance penalties.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)