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

Re: Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad -- VOTING PERIOD BEGINS

Dan Zuras wrote:

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?


I have no comment on the dispute between Paul and Baker.

The rationale in my NO vote reflects my understanding of the motion.

Nate