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 [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum