| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Nate, P-1788, Before I accept your withdrawal of Motion 23, let me consult with people to see if it is acceptable procedure to vote on it with the interpretation "no mid-rad, no implict i-datatype, and no Motion 19." Would you withdraw your withdrawal under those circumstances? (I was just speculating on what's on Arnold's mind, to point out that there is still flexibility in interpretation. I'd be glad to nail this down to ANY unambiguous statement. For Arnold's opinion, we need to turn to Arnold.) Baker On 10/10/2010 18:17, Nate Hayes wrote:
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since changed his view that the implicit data type was crafted only to support mid-rad.Then either Motion 23 should be withdrawn, or else it should be voted on for what it was originally intended: no mid-rad, no implict i-datatype, and no Motion 19.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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax) (337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home) URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street) Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------