Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .

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 protected]
>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
                  [email protected]
=====================================================
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.

Useful links