Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Motion P1788/M0030.01:Level_1_constructors NO

P1788,

I remind people that this motion is for guidance in
formulating the actual text., and the actual
text is what counts in the end.  Can I get away with
asking for any objections if num2interval() is
removed from the actual text (and then allowing
a couple of days for response)?  In any case,
if there is no num2interval() in the text and
someone objects, this will be revealed during
the discussion or voting period.  The idea is to
do preliminary work with position papers so
voting on the actual text is smoother.

Baker

On 02/27/2012 05:15 PM, Corliss, George wrote:

P1788,

My overall track record on parliamentary advice is poor, but I'll try again anyway.

I think the text of the motion cannot be changed during the voting period.

There are at least 5 possibilities:

1. Move to amend Motion M0030.01.  That halts voting on the motion and opens discussion on the amendment.  The amendment is voted upon, and if the amendment passes, the amended motion.  This takes about twice as long as #2, 3, or 4.

2. Vote down Motion M0030.01 and introduce a replacement motion.

3. Accept M0030.01 and then introduce a motion to change it.

4.  Withdraw M0030.01 and introduce a new motion.

5.  Let M0030.01 die for lack of a quorum.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, a strategic non-vote is more likely to achieve outcome 5 than a "NO" vote is to achieve outcome 2, given the current vote counts:
Yes: 14; No: 3; required for quorum: 30-31.

Reminder: You MAY change your vote, simply by voting again.  The most recent vote is the one I count.

George Corliss
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Michel Hack wrote:


I'm glad Vincent pointed out that num2interval() is STILL in the motion,
even though is has been removed from the actual standard text being worked
out by John Pryce an Christian Keil.

Is this a case of an overlooked friendly amendment, or was it too late to
change the motion?

In any case, I vote NO -- but would vote YES if num2interval() was removed.

I note that the num2interval() function *could* be supported in a context
where values carried an Exactness indication, e.g. for compile-time literals
if supported by the language.  But that goes a bit too far, and requiring
the explicit use of nums2interval(x, x) at least makes the exposure visible.

Michel.

P.S.  Was everybody who votes YES aware of the fact that the motion did
      not track the agreed-upon change to the text?  Or is this motion
      seen as voting on that text change?
---Sent: 2012-02-27 22:35:06 UTC





--

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott,   rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------