Re: [P-1788]: Anything else to be said about interval overlapping?
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:14:13 +0100
> From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [P-1788]: Anything else to be said about interval overlapping?
>
> Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> >> . . .
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > It would be a shame if future generations of computers
> > ended up creating & maintaining 13 new bits of state to
> > support comparisons. Not fatal, really. But it might
> > inhibit innovation in ways we do not yet understand.
> >
> > I would organize our description of comparisons in much
> > the same way as we should have done in 754: The list in
> > the normative text & the states in an informative annex.
> >
> > But with no more clear alternative, I admit this opinion
> > lacks credibility.
>
> The credible alternative is to require only the three predicates
> subset, interior, and disjoint (and perhaps equal).
I have thought about this too.
These 3 comparisons could be distinguished in some way.
I think to put these 3 under 'shall' & the rest under
'should' guarentees that the rest will NOT be implemented.
I don't like it but you could make a motion to that effect.
>
> As argued before, the others are virtually useless, and can be
> created from their definition by the very rare users who needs it.
>
>
> Thus my recommendation is (in view of our peculiar voting rules)
> that you state that you don't vote -- a course of action recently
> legitimated by our committee leaders, which acts as a more powerful
> way of voting No.
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
>
I do not approve of this peculiar behavior.
It is twisting the 17th century rules for polite
behavior to take advantage of our relatively
anonymous 21st century way of meeting.
There is a saying: They have power who have the
power to say no.
You are using this behavior to amplify that power
to the point of jeopardizing this standard.
Very well, let's see if old Robert was clever
enough to account for that.
Under section 10.1 of our Policies & Procedures
(which we all voted for when we began this thing)
I formally ask the chair for a quorum call before
each vote. I find it acceptable that it be carried
out in parallel with each vote. I further find it
acceptable that a yea or nay vote be counted as
'present' in the quorum call. Both the quorum & the
outcome of the vote will, therefore, be determined
by the number of members that answer the quorum call.
Quoting from paragraph 2 of section 8.2 we have:
Each member is expected to remain informed
of working group business, either through
attending meetings or through electronic
means, and to participate in votes. The
Secretary (or Vote Tabulator, as appropriate)
records who votes. Those who fail to vote on
two consecutive issues will be dropped from
the roster. These persons can have their
voting privileges reinstated by again
officially placing themselves on the roster.
Therefore, under section 8.2 of the P&P, I further
formally ask that those not participating in two votes
in a row be dropped from the roster. The convention
in 754 was to have someone answer 2 quorum calls in
a row before being given the right to vote again.
I don't see text in the P&P for that but it was the
rule I used & the IEEE supported it.
There is supporting text for all of this in sections
10.1, 10.4, 8.2, & 4.
I apologise to our vote tabulator for making this
request formally but it seems that something like
this is being forced on us to prevent this standard
from being defeated from within.
Dan