Re: [P-1788]: Anything else to be said about interval overlapping?
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
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.
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.
I couldn't find the relevant passages now, but in former
discussions on voting issues, this was deemed applicable only
to voting on text issues, not for voting on guidelines.
MY interpration is backed up by Geeorge Corliss' mail form
October 31, 2010, where he wrote:
<begin quote>
It IS appropriate, during the voting, for opponents to post messages
urging people NOT TO VOTE (and why).
Perhaps my "please vote" messages should include an reminder of the
power of a non-vote.
<end quote>
Of course, if everyone has to vote, a No is as good as not voting,
but if barely more than half of those eligible vote, a No carries
far less power than a non-vote.
Thus my advice is sound as long as not voting is not punished.
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.
I had proposed a reasonable amandment of our rules in my mail
from October 5, 2010 Re: ANSWER TO Re: PLEASE VOTE -- why?,
where I wrote:
<begin quote>
I'd suggest that in place of requiring a quorum of
(eligible votes)/2 +eps (YES or NO) votes
to make the voting valid, there should be a quorum of
(eligible votes)/3 +eps YES votes.
This would remedy the present defect, and encourage people to vote,
whether or not they want the motion.
<end quote>