[Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)

[Bronis R. de Supinski]

Jeff:

I have been silent because I do not object to your
position for the remainde of MPI-3. I believe the
controversies have already been settled.

Bronis


On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>
>> Overall, I think the Japan rules interpretation resulted in the
>> right results, whether or not they were consistent with prior votes.
>
>
> FWIW: I agree that perhaps we should have a more strenuous (and precise) definition of the "pass" criteria -- perhaps based on 2/3 (or more?) instead of 1/2 (...intentionally disregarding current ambiguities).  Note that I see this as an issue for MPI-<next>, however.
>
> For MPI-3, I believe that all remaining votes will be consensus-enough that the application of Japan or prior rule interpretations likely will not matter.
>
> Hence, my proposal is to finish MPI-3 using the interpretation I've been using for the past 3-4 years solely for consistency.  This will give us a little time to clarify -- and potentially strengthen -- the "pass" criteria for MPI-<next>.
>
> -- 
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>