Motion 19.02 -- explicit refusal to vote
There is more at stake here than the KISS principle, which other NO
voters have stated. I disagree with the premise that "All interval
datatypes are equal", even if some are more equal than others. The
inability to express semibounded ranges is a crucial difference, of
a different nature than the inability to define an unambiguous hull.
There are also some important corrections which have not been applied.
Perhaps I did not realise (when I proposed those corrections on 23 Sept)
that I had to submit a "friendly amendment" to get them dealt with.
The motion also proposes to change the TEXT of the current draft. Does
that not raise its status above that of a position paper?
Michel.
P.S. Here we are, pretending to do math -- but we did not even realise
that our voting rules were broken, until Arnold alerted us!
With the current rules, as soon as members/2 YES votes have been
received, ANY vote -- including NO votes -- counts as a YES vote,
albeit one that is accompanied with comments explaining why the
voter actually disagrees.
---Sent: 2010-10-31 17:58:34 UTC