Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Motion P1788/0022.01: ContinuityBit -- discussion perios begins

Ok, folks. That all sounds good to me.

Attached then, is my formal submission for an amendment to Motion 22.
I think John has done a fine job on the motion and am only proposing an amendment to change that P1788 standardize "defined and continuous" as the official "public interface" of this decoration bit as opposed to "discontinuous".
My reasons why I think this would be best for P1788 are also explained in the paper. 

Sincerley,

Nate Hayes
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Motion P1788/0022.01: ContinuityBit -- discussion perios begins



P-1788 (in response to Dan),
Yes, let me make that official: The discussion period for Motion 22 herewith begins. (For temporary reference, I have attached a copy of it, which John promises to correct soon.) Discussion will continue until after October 3, 2010. 

Juergen:  Please post this information on the web page.

William: Please record this in the minutes.

John: You can pass along corrections  at
      any point during the discussion you feel is appropriate.

Best regards,

Baker
P.S. I thank Juergen at this point for his web page maintenance activities. 
     That has turned out to be valuable for us.

On 9/12/2010 09:00, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Subject: Re: Do I have a second? Re: Motion on decoration bit to verify continuity 
From: John Pryce<j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:08:55 +0100
To: P1788<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Nate, Baker , Officers

I'm going to send this round the officers for their views on procedure.


(I reply to everyone on grounds that they
might as well hear the answer too. :-)



On 11 Sep 2010, at 21:20, Nate Hayes wrote:

If you would be willing to change the proposal from "discontinuous"

to "defined and continuous," then I would proffer an ethusiastic second
to the motion. Otherwise, I fear my vote would be a reluctant "no" if
this change is not made.

It seems to me that under Roberts' rules there is a tailor-made way to
handle this. You propose the above change as an Amendment. You will
obviously kick off the discussion with your reasons for the change.
Whichever way the vote goes on that, I will accept the democratic
result and would be happy for one of us to be proposer and the other
be second on the (amended or unamended) motion. Will you agree the same?


Yes, John, that is EXACTLY the correct Robert's Rules
course of action.

The sequence is:
(1) You propose a motion.
(2) It is seconded.  (I will second it right now to move
things along.)
(3) During the discussion period (which I guess we are in
right now), Nate proposes his amendment.
(4) Nate's amendment is seconded.  (I will also second that
if only to give it a fair hearing.)
(5) Your original motion is tabled while the amendment is
discussed.
(6) The amendment is voted on.  If it passes it becomes
part of the motion.  If it does not, the motion remains
as you proposed it.
(7) The motion (amended or not) is taken off the table&
discussion resumes.  Additional amendments may be made.
(8) The motion (amended or not) is voted on.
(9) We all move on to other things in our lives.



(I'm not sure: if the amendment goes Nate's way, does he become the
owner of the amended motion?)

Regards

John


No, you are the owner of the motion either way.  Nate is
the owner of the amendment.  The seconders just get to
see their name in the big book.  (Mine is always last
alphabetically.  Its a genetic thing.  I get it from my
father. :-)

In ordinary parliamentary procedure there would also be
the issue of whether it was a vote decided by the chairman
on hearing the yeas&  nays or whether someone questioned
the chairman's judgement&  called for the roll to record
each vote by name.

But in our 21st century environment our secretary gets
the names of each voter along with the vote.  So as long
as that information is archived somewhere it will be
there for future historians to have fun with.

Ain't parliamentary procedure fun?

I can't wait until someone calls a point of order...


Dan


BTW, a point of order is how you tell people that Nate
should be making an amendment. :-)




--

---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: tbontb.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document