Any objections for a slight amendment? Re: Motion P1788/M0005.02_Table_of_operations vote : NO
John,
We're in uncharted territory, I think, in determining whether or not it is
"allowed." I see no problems, however, if no-one objects.
As an alternative, we may let the vote run its course, and it may
pass anyway. You can then put it in an appendix, and people can
vote authoritatively on it (with 2/3 required majority) as an
actual part of the standard. That seems fair, n'est pas?
Baker
John Pryce wrote:
P1788, Ulrich, Bo
On 8 Sep 2009, at 21:13, Michel Hack wrote:
I vote NO on Motion 5 -- table of operations.
I believe with several others that a semantic definition of operations
in the style of the Vienna proposal is a better way to proceed.
I would welcome the explicit definitions in an appendix, if we can
away with that. (We had a similar discussion in P754R about the late
Dave James' tabular definitions.)
It was always my belief -- I have said this in a couple of emails --
that the proper place for the Motion 5 tables is in a non-normative
appendix, for the reasons stated by Michel.
If
- the motion could be amended at this late stage to include a statement
to that effect,
- and this would persuade some NO-voters to change to YES,
I (in capacity as Tech Editor as well as seconder of this motion) would
welcome this.
Chair: is this allowed? Ulrich, Bo: would you support this?
John
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------