RE: Motions 26 and 27: No
We started with Arnold Neumaier's draft which was almost a ready standard, I think we did not deviate too much, and John Pryce has made the texts very standards-like looking, so I think there is hope that we will do exactly as you suggest
________________________________________
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Markus Neher [markus.neher@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:46 AM
To: stds-1788
Subject: Motions 26 and 27: No
My vote on Motions 26 and 27 is no. Decorations are too
[ ] advanced [ ] ambitious [ ] complicated (tick where appropriate).
While acknowledging the time and energy many of you put in the
development of an interval standard, I regret to say that I've lost
belief that we're still on the path for achieving our common goal.
In my opionion, we've been overshooting for quite some time. We should
agree on keeping the standard simple, we should agree on SOME standard,
even if it may not be the optimal standard for each and everyone, and we
should do so soon. We can't expect people outside our community
accepting and supporting a standard that is so controversial among us.
Best regards,
Markus