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.
Ralph, I think that what you say is about Motion 31 (standard text
motion), isn't it?
> Best regards,
>
> Baker
>
> On 03/27/2012 10:34 PM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > This motion defines nums2bareinterval, text2bareinterval,
> > bareempty,& bareentire in some detail& then goes on to
> > define decorated constructors as something of an
> > afterthought.
[...]
This NO vote from Dan was against Motion 30.02. It was Nate who
voted NO on Motion 31 (standard text motion), like I did. See:
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:15:39 -0500
From: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Motion M0030 and M0031: YES and NO
--
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)