Re: Processing "no" votes associated with standards text
On 2012-04-01 15:18:13 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Dan, Vincent, et al,
>
> Our P&P stipulates that the commentary associated with "no"
> votes is to be considered as a motion to amend.
>
> Are there any objections to putting all such "no"
> vote commentary into one motion, after the voting on this
> portion of the standards text runs its course, and then
> seeking a second? Also, it is logical that such a
> motion to amend be processed according to the rules
> for position papers.
No objections from me.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)