Re: I vote NO on motion 36.03...
Dan and P1788
On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:45, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> I vote NO on this motion.
...
> We are voting on THIS standard not some future one
> that might come to exist if it can be made of those
> who can agree more than we. After all, WE are the
> experts & would also be on that committee.
>
> If this motion should fail, please take that as
> increased pressure to agree on some sort of Kaucher
> or modal proposal. If not, don't worry about it.
> Including such intervals at any time invalidates
> nothing about this standard.
>
> While John has created an excellent framework to
> discuss things such as "flavors", that discussion
> is something we should have now not at some future
> time. His work is not wasted no matter how this
> motion goes.
I thank you for your praise for my framework, but please would you clarify what you think should be done? To me your words read like
"We risk running out of time. So reject motion 36 and get back to discussing how we might agree to unify set-based and Kaucher in one system. Never mind that we have gone round in circles trying to agree this for over a year."
(BTW I am now using "Kaucher" instead of "modal" after seeing that Alexandre Goldszteijn's work, which seems a solid theoretical basis, uses Kaucher intervals as its basic definition.)
Or does your "If not, don't worry about it" mean that you are thinking long term? I.e. we can put a Kaucher (or modal) sub-document in an informative Annex, and do the same to my flavors, with the aim of making them mandatory in future when we have validated the ideas thoroughly in theory and practice?
What do other people think?
John Pryce