| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I agree. Personally I think the Level 2 definitions are good and it
would
be nice to find some way to provide at Level 1 a consistent definition. How
to
do this would be the question in my mind. Dan’s motion was a valiant
effort.
Nate
From: Ralph Baker Kearfott
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Nate Hayes
Cc: stds-1788 ; Michel Hack
Subject: Re: a draft motion on midpoint and
radius With
motion 32 failing, I suppose it's not relevant to whether or not Motion 37 passes, that is, we wouldn't have an inconsistent set of guidance if Motion 37 passes. However, perhaps we should all understand the differences between the two motions. Baker On 09/28/2012 10:49 AM, Nate Hayes wrote: > IMO Motion 32 also gave a Level 1 definition that contradicted the Level 2 definition. > Nate > *From:* Michel Hack <mailto:mhack@xxxxxxx> > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 10:14 AM > *To:* stds-1788 <mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > *Subject:* a draft motion on midpoint and radius > How is this different from Motion 32, which failed? > > Michel. > ---Sent: 2012-09-28 15:16:06 UTC |