Re: Basenote drift to the value of mid-rad forms...

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:57:19 +0200
> From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Basenote drift to the value of mid-rad forms...
> 
> Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> 
> >>>> . . .
> 
> > 	Shall I make that motion for you?
> 
> Not for me. I'd be happy with the already accepted Motion 16
> taken seriously, and Motion 19 (which flatly contradicts Motion 16)
> withdrawn.

	I still support motion 19 for all the reasons
	I've stated.

	So I would just as soon it continue as is.

> 
> But if you or someone else thinks it beneficial for a solid future
> standard, and for saving the committee lots of extra work, a motion
> text like

	I do not.  But I will make this motion anyway
	as much to clear the air on this issue as for
	any other reason.

> 
>     The standard shall not support a midrad interval format or
>     nonstandard intervals, beyond providing conversion support,
>     approximately to the extent specified in the Vienna Proposal.
> 
> looks fine from my perspective.
> 
> 
> Arnold Neumaier

	Then I so move.

	Baker, would you take the above sentance as the
	text of the motion.

	I suppose you should put both Arnold's name & mine
	on it.

	Thank you, Arnold, for finally clarifying your
	position on this matter.

	Now I hope we can get back to voting on motion 19
	with no further difficulties.


				Dan