[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:35:27 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54168ECD35A8@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <AANLkTimzt6Jvc3YidO=vDcWYd9QC1r2oNTAmXyqkzFHd@mail.gmail.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54168ECD35A8@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Dear John, Other than my own messages, could you point me to where there was a discussion of the actual proposal Ralf made, rather than of variations and interpretations, but of the actual wording change Ralf proposed for the CIF2 document? I cannot seem to find that. That wording seemed/seems pretty sensible to me. Regards, Herbert At 11:02 AM -0600 2/21/11, Bollinger, John C wrote: >On Monday, February 21, 2011 7:40 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: > >>[...] I did indeed repeatly >>object to the process being followed, especially the failure to >>consider and discuss Ralf's original proposal, and have repeatedly >>asked for COMCIFS votes on many issues, including this one. > >I am not prepared to judge whether correct procedure was followed in >delegating the discussion to the DDLm subcommittee instead of >holding it directly at the COMCIFS level, nor whether there are >other procedural grounds for objecting to James's planned course of >action. COMCIFS business seems in general to be conducted with only >loose regard for procedure, however. > >>[...] I >>believe it is best for COMCIFS "approval" to include discussions, >>as it has in the past, and not a simple up-or-down vote. > >This group devoted considerable discussion to Ralf's original >proposal. Most of the voting members of COMCIFS participated in the >discussion, and an up-to-date record of it has continually been >publically available. Ralf himself was kept apprised of the >discussion and had every opportunity to participate if he had wished >to do so. We did not reach a consensus, at least in part because of >members' substantially different technical assessments of the >proposal's merits, but the proposal received all due consideration. >I see no reason to believe that continued discussion will lead to a >consensus, whether among DDLm members, among voting COMCIFS members, >or among the members of the intersection of those groups. > >>Right now, it is not clear to me that we have either a consensus or >>at least a majority of COMCIFS in favor of anything on the >>triple-quoted string issue. > >Given the number of proposals that were at one time on the table, it >is unlikely that an absolute majority for any one of them is >achievable. James has essentially applied a run-off election >procedure, which is an eminently reasonable way of proceeding under >the circumstances. Please recall: > >On Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:41 AM, James Hester wrote: >>So our top preferences are as follows: >> >>Herbert: P, otherwise F with conditions >>Brian: F' and E, P least preferable >>James: F' and F, P unacceptable >>Ralf: P best, A,B,E,F,F' OK >>John W: A, B or F' (my interpretation of minimal changes - John feel >>free to say otherwise) >> >>It appears that all but Herbert would be prepared to vote for F', and >>even Herbert is prepared to consider F. No other proposal reaches a >>similar level of acceptance among voting members (and I note that >>non-voting members are also strongly in the F/F' camp). I would >>therefore like to focus discussion on F' and F as the two choices most >>likely to succeed. > >Note that Ralf voted, David abstained from voting, and only COMCIFS >voting members' rankings were explicitly summarized. John W's vote >was somewhat ambiguous with respect to ranking proposals A - F' >relative to each other, but I don't see a way to construe it as >ranking proposal P other than last. > >There are a variety of ways to score multi-candidate voting, but >with a majority of votes from voting COMCIFS members preferring >every other proposal to proposal P, none of the scoring methods I >know choose P to advance to a run-off vote, much less as winner. >And that's the vote cross-section most favorable to proposal P. > > >John > > >Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer > >_______________________________________________ >ddlm-group mailing list >email@example.com >http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group -- ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 firstname.lastname@example.org ===================================================== _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list email@example.com http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .