Re: Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad -- VOTING PERIOD BEGINS
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:59:07 +0200
> From: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@xxxxxxxx>
> To: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: owner-stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad -- VOTING PERIOD BEGINS
>
> Baker,
>
> > Here, let us agree that "support" in this motion means that
> > operations on the object, possibly including accuracy and
> > reproducibility requirements, are explicitly defined in the
> > standard. Also, by "nonstandard intervals," let us agree that
> > this means Kaucher arithmetic. (Otherwise, one might think "nonstandard"
> > meant "anything not in the standard," something that would
> > not make sense in this context.)
>
> since the discussion period has now ended, it is too late to (re)define what
> this motion means. This should have been done during the discussion period.
> If you believe this motion is not sufficiently precise, please ask the
> proposers to withdraw and resubmit it. As acting chair, I believe you have
> no special right that allows you to redefine the motion. Am I wrong?
>
> Paul Zimmermann
I think we can agree that any clarification that is
consistent with the wishes of the proposers is within
his purview. Especially since it involves policy &
not actual wording in the document.
It is for the proposers to decide, not you.
I have no objection to this clarification.
I made the motion for Arnold. And Nate seconded.
Arnold & Nate, whether you approve of the motion or
not, is this clarification consistent with what we
discussed?
Dan