(j3.2006) Proposal for system of units

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Wed Nov 14 20:16:12 EST 2012

Van wrote:
>I hope it will not be bulldozed underground
> >in subgroup.

I replied:
> Fortunately, "bulldozed underground" is not something that happens
> anyway, in subgroup or otherwise.

Van continues to misrepresent the situation:
>OK, give a better description of what happened to the first, second,
>third, fifth, and sixth proposals in part 2 of 12-195,
>These were vetoed in subgroup.

They lost the vote.  That's it.  Subgroup not voting up your proposals does not 
a "veto" make - it makes "not getting subgroup support".

I will point out that this paper contained lots of technical topics that were 
not in any pre-meeting paper.  It did not meet the zero-week rule let alone the 
2-week rule that we are normally supposed to use.  And a signficant number of 
its items were not technically within the normal /DATA subgroup remit.  A 
further number were missing essential technical details and any motivation.  But 
I did not rule it out of order, instead I (we) worked on processing it and 
identifying (and modifying where necessary) the proposals that we could agree 
had sufficient merit for recommending inclusion in the "wart removal" list 

>The minutes say "no further action" on 12-195.

Of course they do - 195 contained suggestions for inclusion in 183, so was never 
going to be acted on itself.

And by then we had already extracted the choicest elements for inclusion in 183; 
despite that, I did not want to produce a 195r1 with all the items that did not 
make the cut removed, to make it easier in case we did reconsider some more of 
these (perhaps in the light of additional information) at meeting 200.

So no "bulldozing", we discussed the items in 195, the ones we agreed on got 
proposed for inclusion in 183.

>> This does sound rather like US TAG business to me, rather than PL22.3
>> overall.
>I still want to present a tutorial on Monday or Tuesday, preferably in
>the morning.  If Malcolm wants to exclude himself from the discussion,
>that's OK.

Just clarifying your "urge J3 [to] advocate", since I am a member of J3 but have 
no say in US TAG.  So the exclusion has already occurred, not by my choice.

................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. 

More information about the J3 mailing list