Re: a draft motion on midpoint and radius

[Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes.

At the "in-person" meeting, there seemed to be a consensus that
the values at certain edge cases cannot be deduced mathematically,
but it was advantageous to specify the values, even if more than
one way of specifying them were logical.  Doesn't this imply the specification must
be at level 2?

Best regards,

Baker

On 09/28/2012 11:06 AM, Nate Hayes wrote:
> 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 <mailto:rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 10:58 AM
> *To:* Nate Hayes <mailto:nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* stds-1788 <mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Michel Hack <mailto:mhack@xxxxxxx>
> *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