Re: P1788: Motions 26 & 27 PLEASE VOTE
P1788
On 5 Aug 2011, at 21:42, Corliss, George wrote:
> It is up to you to vote in a consistent way (for either one of the motions or none).
>
> If you vote "No," you are strongly encouraged to say what changes to that motion it would take for you to vote, "Yes."
>
> Personal opinion:
> Please do NOT say, "This is too complicated/controversial; I won't vote." If both motions fail for lack of a quorum, I suspect the proponents of each may re-submit their motions, and we will vote on the same thing again.
Yes, I'm sure we will. However, I have MUCH sympathy with Ian McIntosh's "A plague o' both your houses" view:
On 11 Aug 2011, at 16:59, Ian McIntosh wrote:
> I will vote NO to any decorations motion unless the authors and main proponents of motions 25, 26 and 27 agree on one motion.
and, were I not one of the proponents, I would be feeling the same way by now.
When Nate & Juergen withdrew motion 27, I was minded to withdraw motion 26 too, but decided to wait and see how discussion would pan out. I suspect it will fall owing to lack of a quorum (though I haven't counted). Anyhow, valuable points have been made in the final stages.
We need decorations. But I would now much prefer not to submit any new decoration motion till the Juergen-Nate group and the Arnold-John group have agreed on a common stance. This has proved harder than I expected, mainly because there are issues that one side considers secondary but the other considers central, and vice versa. (No, I will NOT go into details now.)
For now I suggest
- Will someone propose a motion on what *interval constructors* the standard should
specify? (Bare intervals for the moment!)
If we decide this, I think it will make it clearer whether a Not-an-Interval object
is required.
Q for discussion: Should constructors exist at Level 1 or are they purely a
notion for Levels 2 onward?
- The Level 1 text EXCLUDING decorations should be split into pieces to be voted on
as actual standard text. Anyone volunteer? If not, I will do it.
- That involves getting the "Definitions" section into satisfactory form. I hope I
can call on some *editorial assistance* to do the revising. At present it is bitty
and probably inconsistent.
How extensive should it be, anyway? Dan, can you advise?
- I will put my editorial efforts, for now, into revising the Level 2 text.
I still haven't properly incorporated Explicit/Implicit interval types,
so that is a top priority IMO.
Best wishes
John Pryce