Re: Motion 10v2 released; and atan2
Juergen and P1788
> A couple of points about M0010.02.
>
> First, if I vote Yes for M0010.10 (in George's notation) "List of
> required functions" am I saying that I want the required functions to
> include EXACTLY those on your list, or to include AT LEAST those on
> the list and possibly some others?
As Parliamentarian: Yes, I agree that is ambiguous. I recommend that
Juergen disambiguate the motion.
As participant: I assume it will take several iterations to get a list of
functions on which we agree. The question is, "How can we converge at least
linearly?"
I suggest a wording consistent with John's "AT LEAST." Perhaps something
like
Vote 1: That the functions listed in Table 1 be required.
Vote YES if you like all those functions. If that passes, we may add
functions later. Of course, we also may vote to remove functions later.
Vote NO if either
You disagree with a definition or specification
Or
You do not think a function should be required.
A vote of NO should specify what it would take to make you vote YES.
I fully expect Motion M0010.10 to fail because there may be several
functions we don't have right or that are otherwise controversial.
Then Juergen takes the Uncontroversial functions, puts them in a table, and
repeats the vote. Since that table contains nothing anyone objected to on
the first round, that motion (M0010.11?) should pass, and we'll have a
consensus list of included functions.
In parallel with M0010.11, state a separate motion for each of the functions
which caused someone to vote NO in round one.
This would be a natural point to vote on any other functions people wish to
add to the required list.
Round one identifies what we agree on, and we vote on that as a whole. It
identifies what we disagree on, and we vote on each of those separately.
Hopefully, that is easier than casting M0010.10 as 26 separate motions (one
for each function) in round one.
Some of this explanation belongs in Juergen's document.
Does anyone object to that plan?
George