[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


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.
>Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
>ddlm-group mailing list

  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]