Re: P1788: PLEASE VOTE
Baker and all,
On Oct 7, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> P-1788, George:
>
> I plan to withhold my vote on these two motions
> for the following reasons:
>
> 1. I am at present still acting as chair. Following
> Roberts' rules (or an adaptation of them to email
> conduct of business) I would vote only if it
> were to break a tie.
OK
>
> 2. In addition to Motion 13 and Motion 20,
> there are two other motions or prospective motions
> associated with comparison operators: Motion 21
> (13 comparisons closely tied to the standard
> ordering of the real numbers), and a proposal
> Arnold has been discussing privately with me
> and Dominique Lohez. (I may extend discussion on
> Motion 21, once Arnold's motion is made public,
> so voting on both of these motions will be simultaneous.)
>
> 3. I can see advantages and disadvantages of each
> of the four proposals, and I truly haven't made up
> my mind. (Help me by voting.)
>
> If more than one of these four eventual motions succeeds,
> we may have a problem of interpreting the intent, since
> the separate motions advocate inconsistent sets of
> comparisons to a certain extent (although,
> would we then be saying that we want ALL of the comparisons
> in EACH motion?).
> Where inconsistencies occur, I'll assume
> that the motion passed latest (if not simultaneous) supersedes
> the earlier motion.
I agree with that interpretation. We surely want to be able to change our collective minds. However, as Arnold has pointed out, a consequence of that is that nothing is ever really decided, and we might never move from square one.
In my opinion, this electronic meeting has become confusing. In a face-to-face meeting, there is only one motion on the floor at a time. That is too slow for an electronic meeting, but I do not even know how many motions are in various states of proposal/discussion/motion right now, and I am trying to pay attention daily.
In my opinion, we need (acting) Chair and Technical Editors to take a more aggressive role in aggregating various proposals/motions into more coherent alternatives. Perhaps, instead of advancing four inconsistent motions, someone should form ONE motion with several alternative paragraphs (or several sets of several alternatives). Instead of voting Yes/No, we would vote {1: A | B | C}; {2: A | B}; etc.
Ideally, the "someone" is the union of the proposers of the inconsistent motions, but it may need to be someone else.
Whatever, I think a wiki (or similar) MIGHT help organized the discussions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Baker
>
> P.S. Arnold (and George) are right that if there are
> more "yes" votes than "no" votes but still no quorum,
> it is advantageous for an opponent
> of the motion to withhold a "no" vote. However,
> I don't think, in retrospect, that such behavior
> is fatal to our effort, since the issue will
> eventually reappear within the wording of the
> standard, and people either vote or are removed
> from the roster at that time. Furthermore, it
> is unclear how to change the voting rules in a
> way that would both mitigate this incentive to not
> participate and also be generally acceptable.
I believe someone once offered a mathematical proof that there is NO voting system (under realistic assumptions) that is not subject to "strategic voting," defined as increasing the probability of one's desired outcome by acting in a manner apparently at odds with one's preferences. The US Congress does that ALL THE TIME, with amendments and the like.
George
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: P1788: PLEASE VOTE
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:32:51 +0000
> From: Corliss, George <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Corliss, George <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> According to my records, you are a registered voter in P1788, and you have not yet voted on either Motion 13.04 Comparison Relations or on Motion 20.01 Comparing Comparisons.
>
> Voting on Motion M0013.04 Comparison Relations (Kulisch/Pryce) ends on TOMORROW, October 8.
> Current count: Yes: 25; No: 2; Required for quorum: 37
>
> Voting on Motion M0020.01 Comparing Comparisons (Lohez/Kreinovich) ends on TOMORROW, October 8.
> Current count: Yes: 13; No: 12; Required for quorum: 37
>
> As Voting Tabulator, I urge you to PLEASE VOTE. To vote, send a message to stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> However, I feel honor-bound to point out that Arnold has pointed out that if you oppose a motion, it is a better strategy to not vote than to vote no. If you choose such strategic non-voting, I urge you to share your reasons.
>
> I consider October 8 to end when October 8 disappears beneath the International Date Line, so I count votes waiting for me when I get up on Saturday morning.
>
> Dr. George F. Corliss
> Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Marquette University
> P.O. Box 1881
> 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
> Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
> 414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
> George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg
>
>
>
>
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg