I withdraw my "second" of Motion 23: was "OOPS"...

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Nate,
>
> OK; see my inserted comment.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Baker
>
> On 10/10/2010 14:30, Nate Hayes wrote:
> > Nate Haye wrote:
> > > Baker Kearfott wrote:
> > > > Nate, P-1788,
> .
> .
> .
> > > Well, it is a nice thought and interpretation, but its not what I see 
> > > Motion 23 is
> > > advocating, unfortunately.
> >
> > In fact I would not have given the motion a "second" if I had been under 
> > this interpretation
> > that it is what Arnold had been intending. Clearly if you go back and 
> > read those e-mail messages,
> > I don't see that this was the intention of Motion
> > 23.
>
> Yes, you are, in a sense, right.  Arnold definitely was against inclusion 
> of an
> implicit data type, on the grounds that it complicated the standard.  He 
> also
> expressed the opinion that it was merely a tricky way of including 
> mid-rad. However,
> he also said that Motion 19 could be improved by requiring an explicit 
> data type,
> and Version 5 of the motion, upon which we are now voting, has that 
> requirement.
> Furthermore, he might have since changed his view that the implicit data 
> type was
> crafted only to support mid-rad.

Then either Motion 23 should be withdrawn, or else it should be voted on for 
what it was originally intended: no mid-rad, no implict i-datatype, and no 
Motion 19.

But it is quite dubious, in my opinion, that people should vote YES to both 
motion 19 and 23 under the pretense that the proposer of motion 23 may have 
sinced changed his mind or position.

Therefore in light of these present circumstances, I formally withdraw my 
"second" of Motion 23.

Sincerely,

Nate Hayes