I guess the 2/3 majority vote of your email voted for 3 weeks, with a
1/3 minority voting for 2 weeks? 8<)
In case you're wondering what I mean:
- "extended for two weeks"
- "for another three weeks"
- "Tuesday, November 24, instead of Tuesday, November 3"
- Ian McIntosh Toronto IBM Lab 8200 Warden D2-445
From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ian McIntosh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 30/10/2009 11:20 AM
Subject: Motion P1788/M0010.01_ElementaryFunctions: Discussion period
extended for two weeks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juergen and P1788,
Yes. I hereby extend the discussion period for another three
weeks. Discussion on the motion will now end on Tuesday, November 24,
instead of Tuesday, November 3. Please update the information
on the web page, and please upload the revised motion and announce
it when it is ready.
William: Please record this action in the minutes.
Best regards,
Baker
J. Wolff v. Gudenberg wrote:
> George, Baker, Dan, John and all the others
> I am preparing an amendment of the motion 10.
> Functions in the required list will be accepted as the whole set.
> Hopefully! the recommended list may become empty. So please prolong the
> discussion period
> best regards
> Juergen
>
>
> Corliss, George schrieb:
>> John,
>>
>> I COULD keep such a vote tally, but I suggest asking everyone to vote at
>> that fine a resolution could hurt the vote participation.
>>
>> I suggest that if there are particular functions which are
>> controversial, or
>> which turn out to be controversial in discussion, THOSE functions may be
>> singled out for individual voting.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/09 8:50 AM, "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: Re: motion elementary functions
>>>> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:21:00 +0000
>>>> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P1788 members
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 17:14, J=FCrgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
>>>>> please find attached a motion on elementary functions.
>>>> I attach a document with a table that compares the elementary
>>>> functions offered in various standards, and suggests a friendly
>>>> amendment to J=FCrgen's current motion 10. In particular it is, I
>>>> think, more precise about a way to vote for or against each
>>>> individual function. This procedure needs further hardening up, in my
>>>>
>>>> view, and I invite suggestions from our procedure Czar, George
>>>> Corliss, to that end.
>>>>
>>>> John Pryce
>>>>
>>> Oh, John, I appreciate the work you have put into
>>> compiling this table but I would REALLY recommend
>>> against this course of action. Besides leading
>>> to a different list for each voter, it puts an
>>> extraordinary burden on our tabulator.
>>>
>>> Let Jurgen propose the list he thinks is best.
>>> Let us, as members of this group argue about the
>>> details of that list during the discussion period.
>>> Then let us vote it up or down on its merits.
>>>
>>> We have plenty of time before we're done with this
>>> issue. Time enough for someone to make later
>>> motions to add or subtract functions from our list.
>>>
>>> But please don't send us down a path so wide we are
>>> all guarenteed to end up in different places.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Dan
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------