Motion 42: NO -> YES
On 2013-02-01 07:22:24 -0600, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Although your comments will undoubtedly be useful, there was
> some confusion at the beginning of the vote concerning whether
> the motion represented actual text or just a position. Although
> the motion was presented as actual text, the proposer meant
> for it to be as a position paper. Thus, even though there
> might be awkward wording or incorrect placement of commas, etc.,
> if you understood what it is saying, you should base your "yes" or
> "no" vote on whether or not you agree generally with the ideas in it.
>
> In view of this, you are welcome to change your vote, or keep it as it is.
OK, I change my vote to YES because I agree with the general ideas.
I suppose that the standard text that will be voted upon later will
take my comments into account.
--
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)