Doc No:   SC22/WG21/N2452
                                                  J16/07-0322
                                        Date:     2007-10-20
                                        Project:  JTC1.22.32
                                        Reply to: Robert Klarer
                                                  IBM Canada, Ltd.
                                                  klarer@ca.ibm.com

Minutes of WG21 Meeting No. 41, October 1-6, 2007

1. Opening activities

Clamage called the meeting to order at 08:50 (GMT+10) on Monday, October 1, 2007

1.1 Opening comments

Plum described the arrangements and facilities for the meeting.

1.2 Introductions

Clamage had the attendees introduce themselves.

1.3 Meeting guidelines (Anti-Trust)

Clamage reviewed the patent disclosure rules.

1.4 Membership, voting rights, and procedures for the meeting

Nelson reviewed membership rules. Nelson then circulated the attendance list and membership list. Clamage reviewed voting rules and reviewed procedures for the meeting.

1.5 Agenda review and approval

Clamage presented the agenda (document J16/07-0235 = WG21/N2375).

Motion to approve the agenda:

1.6 Distribution of position papers, WG progress reports, WG work plans for the week, and other documents that were not distributed before the meeting.

Each of the Working Group chairs presented their plans for the coming week.

Core Working Group (CWG)

Adamczyk reported that there are about 20 papers due to be processed by the CWG. Due to the volume of papers to be reviewed, the CWG will have little time to address the CWG issues list.

Library Working Group (LWG)

Hinnant reported that the LWG has several new papers (about a dozen) to review. In addition, the LWG has a large number of open issues. Hinnant indicated that he expect the LWG to meet in a joint session with the concurrency group.

Evolution Working Group (EWG)

Stroustrup reported that the bulk of the work remaining to EWG is in concurrency, which is deferred to Boehm's subgroup. Lambdas are the other remaining open item for EWG, and that discussion will be deferred until Jaarvi arrives on Wednesday.

Crowl asked whether there was any intention to discuss proposals related to dynamic libraries. Stroustrup indicated that a discussion of dynamic libraries could also take place Wednesday.

Austern inquired about the status of proposals to introduce Garbage Collection (GC) to the language. Stroustrup replied that Spertus and Boehm are progressing well on an implementation of the GC proposal, but it is not yet ready, so they have requested that GC not be discussed at this meeting.

1.7 Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting

Motion to approve the minutes (document J16/06-0215 = WG21/N2355)

1.8 Report on the WG21 Monday meeting

Sutter reported that five countries are represented at this meeting; all five have voting status.

Sutter also reported that a ballot on a New Work Item Proposal for an International Standard on special math functions for C++ has passed. However, some National Bodies voted no on this ballot, because they didn't want to see a separate C++ standard, even if WG21 is working on it.

1.9 Liaison reports

WG14 Liaison

There hasn't been a WG14 meeting since WG21 last met.

POSIX Liaison

Stoughton reported that a study group meeting on a C++ binding to POSIX was held prior to the July 2007 meeting in Toronto. IEEE has voted to pursue this effort.

As well, Stoughton reported that POSIX is in a Final CD ballot which finishes November 2nd.

Other Working Group: Vulnerabilities (OWGV) Liaison

Plum reminded the committee that OWGV is a quasi-temporary group whose mandate must be re-approved every year. He then explained that OWGV was meeting concurrently with the present WG21/J16 meeting at the same location, and encouraged WG21/J16 members to find time to sit in on their discussions.

1.10 Editor's report and WP approval

The current draft of the WP is J16/07-0229 = WG21/N2369.

Motion to accept the working paper

1.11 New business requiring actions by the committee

1.11.1 Decide on a schedule for [Final] Committee Draft(s) and FDIS.

Sutter reviewed two possible schedules for completion of the C++0X standard. These are identified as Strawman Option X and Strawman Option Y in J16/07=0277 = WG21/N2417: "Timing Options for Kona Discussion"

Much discussion ensued.

Glassborow indicated that the UK will vote against any standard that does not specify a memory model that has a reasonable likelihood of being correct.

Miller noted that at least two proposals for new language features that were formally were approved by the committee had resulted, when integrated into the WP, in interactions that the authors of the papers had not intended. For this reason, he argued, the committee cannot vote out a paper immediately after the last features have been integrated into the WP.

Stroustrup observed that there is pressure to deliver something by 2009, and that it is difficult to explain why nothing significant appears to have happened for 10 years.

Halpern recalled that when the C++ standard was first ratified, he considered the FCD to be a significant document. Halpern then asked Stroustrup what he considered to be significant. Stroustrup replied that Halpern was showing himself to be an expert, and that most C++ programmers don't know what an FCD is.

Brown reminded the committee that it has the option of voting a feature out of the paper. Then he asked: if the committee approves a proposal and then the process of integrating it with features extant or new reveals complications that were previously unseen, would the committee consider removing that feature from the WP?

Plauger suggested that the experiment with TR1 worked well, and that the committee should "make some things TRs, some things Normative Amendments, and some things wait for the next big revision. The community will tolerate incremental changes every 3 to five years, provided we offer some stability."

Stroustrup opined that "anything that gets us on a three-year cycle rather than a 10-year one is good -- we need a constant level of buzz."

Plauger continued, "we need to triage. Things that aren't going to make the cut should go into the pipeline. If we have a three-year cycle, things that don't make the cut don't have to wait 10 years."

Stroustrup indicated tentative agreement, but observed that "it all comes down to examples."

Halpern noted that one important difference between C++ and Java or C# is that C++ compiles down to machine code, and that limits the committee's ability to make big changes.

Adamczyk posed the question "if you only had to deal with the stuff that's on your plate today, how long would it take you to get finished?" He then answered that question on behalf of the Core Working Group, claiming that it would be tough, but that it is conceivable that all proposals that are currently before CWG could be finished by the end of the next meeting. He noted, however, that GC and Lambdas are not yet on the CWG's plate.

Hinnant reported that the LWG and the concurrency group need to discuss the schedule for completion of work on the threading API and threading primitives. Hinnant is concerned that even the primitives are "long poles." Boehm and Plauger concurred.

Stroustrup expressed the feeling that shipping something without threads and without concepts will damage our reputation.

Meredith remarked that the LWG has made little progress with respect to conceptualizing the standard library, because many of the experts on concepts are working in CWG, and that there must be at least one meeting after CWG is done with concepts to complete the necessary LWG meeting.

Witt requested that scheduling decisions be made early during the present meeting, because knowledge of the schedule would affect the committee's prioritization of its work during the coming week. As well, Witt agreed with Stroustrup that shipping a standard without concepts would be a major PR disaster.

Discussion ensued.

Nelson observed that the discussion was preoccupied with the question of which proposals are essential. He requested some discussion to identify those proposals that are inessential, noting that GC, Lambdas, and thread pools had not been identified in the discussion as essential.

Stroustrup indicated that he would be willing to leave out thread pools and GC to complete the standard in 2009. He declined to make the same comment about Lambdas until the EWG had time to review the latest draft of that proposal at this meeting.

Hinnant asked about whether threadpools, in the context of this discussion, included futures. Sutter explained that he believes that they mean everything beyond a basic threading API.

Austern speculated that a simple threadpool that is not associated with futures could pass quickly. Stroustrup agreed.

Discussion ensued.

Sutter asked how many members in attendance were willing to stop talking about GC, threadpools, read/write locks, message queues, and futures for the sake of meeting the schedule. Dos Reis replied that France would like to have a form of programmer-controlled GC in C++, and that a simplification of the current proposal would be satisfactory.

Meredith reported that the UK position on GC is that they would rather have standard without GC than a late standard

J16 voting members in favor of stopping talk about GC and advanced threading

Adamczyk noted that Lambdas represent another significant chunk of work for CWG, and suggested that the committee make a decision on lambdas immediately rather than spending time on them during the coming week.

Stroustrup explained that the author of the paper will arrive on Wednesday. The EWG tried to take Lambdas off the table in Toronto, but there were some objections to that, so a simplified proposal was produced. As a result the committee cannot preemptively decide to drop Lambdas.

2. Organize subgroups, establish working procedures.

We have three subgroups: Core, Library, and Evolution. There will be a subgroup of Evolution to deal with issues relating to concurrency.

The committee broke into subgroups at 10:30 (GMT+10).

3. WG sessions (Core, Library, Performance, Evolution).

4. WG sessions continue.

5. WG sessions continue.

6. WG sessions continue.

7. General session.

7.1 WG status and progress reports.

Core Working Group

Adamczyk presented Core Working Group status and reviewed formal motions to be made Friday (for formal motions, see 9.1, below).

Adamczyk's status report is quoted below:

1) auto disambiguation: We're leaning toward disallowing the old meaning of "auto" instead of disallowing the "()" form of initialization for "auto". This has the potential to break existing code, but Microsoft reports only 3 cases in its searchable code base, and those are in C.

2) WG21/D2428=J16/07-0298, "Namespace Association (strong using)" held back to review alternate syntax. Ready otherwise.

3) WG21/D2438=J16/07-0308, "Inheriting Constructors (revision 3)" back to EWG because of stalemate over syntax.

4) WG21/D2441=J16/07-0311, "Initializer lists WP wording (Revision 1)" held back because of

• Question about definition of narrowing conversion restrictions for float literals.
• Jason Merrill wants a shot at tweaking the overload resolution rules.
• Jaakko Jarvi, on the core reflector, pointed out that it might be surprising that template deduction might produce an initializer_list<X> parameter for a function template that doesn't expect one.
• It was pointed out that explicit constructors unfortunately get used implicitly in some sense to make objects out of raw {x, y, z} lists in calls.

Bjarne recounted a discussion in which the EWG found a solution to the narrow conversion problem, but he reported that the other problems "go fairly deep into the design of the proposal."

Discussion ensued.

Nelson asked how urgently the LWG needs this feature. Brown explained that the proposal's authors have put forward a paper that guides the LWG on the integration of this feature into the standard library, though that paper is not comprehensive. Brown then suggested that the LWG's work is not going to be completed with respect to this feature until it is voted into the core language.

Glassborow suggested the severity of the known problems with the CWG proposal is minor, and that they can be fixed after this proposal is voted into the Working Paper.

Abrahams disagreed that the outstanding problems are minor.

Stoughton asked about impact to the Project Editor's workload of fixing outstanding issues after the fact. Becker indicated that changes after the fact are often unavoidable.

Discussion ensued.

Sutter asked whether CWG discussed concepts. Adamczyk reported that CWG spent nearly as much time on concepts as on all other features combined, and that it seems clear that CWG needs another between-meetings meeting on concepts. He expressed optimism about having concepts voted in at the Bellvue meeting.

Evolution Working Group

Stroustrup reported that the EWG discussed lambdas and that the proposal has been forwarded to core. As well the EWG discussed a proposal from Crowl on Dynamic Linking. There was strong concensus that it was too late to consider this proposal for the next revision. A major concern was the effect of the proposal on the ABI rules. The EWG also discussed a proposal to relax restrictions on unions. There was strong concensus that it should be possible to put an object of a class into a union even if it has constructors; if a class with a non-trivial copy constructor is a member of a union, then the union will not have a copy constructor and, similarly, if a class with a non-trivial destructor is a member of a union, then the union will not be implicitly destructible.

Concurrency Working Subgroup

Boehm reported that the concurrency group didn't meet much as a separate group at this meeting, but did meet jointly with CWG and LWG. Their focus has been on moving proposals toward adoption.

Decide on a schedule for [Final] Committee Draft(s) and FDIS

Sutter led discussion of the committee's schedule of work, continuing from Monday's deliberations (see 1.11.1, above). In light of the progress that had been made at this meeting, Sutter advocated Strawman Option Y. Further, to ensure that Strawman Option Y is achievable, Sutter reviewed two strawman proposals, SP1 and SP2 (below).

Meredith expressed concern that SP1 prohibits practices that are currently well-formed, and felt that this might affect the UK's vote.

Dos Reis reported that he had asked the French NB about whether they could live with this compromise. The response he received was that Motion SP1 is the very minimum that is acceptable to France. They would prefer a standard that includes GC as an intrinsic feature of the language, but this compromise is acceptable to them.

Boehm noted that there is a proposal about cycle collection of shared pointers, and he confirmed that SP1 does not prohibit discussion of that proposal. As well, Boehm clarified some of the tecnical details of Motion SP1. In particular, he indicated that the proposal is not intended to require:

• any required implementation change
• any static annotations, grammar change, or change to the type system, or compiler
• Significant changes to existing collectors

Discussion Ensued.

Motion SP1

WG21 resolves that for this revision of the C++ standard (aka "C++0x") the scope of the memory management extensions shall be constrained as follows:

• Include making some uses of disguised pointers undefined, and providing a small set of functions to exempt specific objects from this restriction and to designate pointer-free regions of memory (where these functions would have trivial implementations in a non-collected conforming implementation).
• Exclude explicit syntax or functions for garbage collection or related features such as finalization.

Motion SP2

WG21 resolves that for this revision of the C++ standard (aka "C++0x") the scope of concurrency extensions shall be constrained as follows:

• Include a memory model, atomic operations, threads, locks, condition variables, and asynchronous future values.
• Exclude thread pools, task launching, and reader-writer locks.

Sutter then introduced a discussion on the dates of the Bay area meeting.

Austern directed to Gregor and Hinnant the following question: "Is it practical to imagine concepts going into core and library at the same meeting?" Gregor explained that it would not be practical, unless there are volunteers to assist him.

Glassborow reported the UK would vote no to a standard that had concepts in the core language but not in the library.

Austern and Abrahams volunteered to assist Gregor in this work.

Plauger suggested that the library aspect of concepts will arrive at most one meeting after they are voted into the core language.

Meredith suggested nominating a drafting committee to complete work on threading so that no major issues relating to a threading library remain outstanding at the beginning of the next meeting. This would allow LWG to concentrate on concepts at the meeting. Sutter explained that that would be fine as long as all issues related to the semantics of such a library are settled.

Nelson argued that the group needs to commit to shipping the CD in fall 2008.

Discussion ensued.

Meredith asked whether the committee might issue a CD at this meeting. Sutter responded that Meredith's question is reasonable, but that the Working Draft is missing at least one major feature. Furthermore, CDs are issued for the purpose of soliciting comments, and the disposition of comments will increase the workload of the committee.

Plauger explained that the risk of issuing a CD at this meeting is high because the document is not yet feature complete. Plum and Glassborow agreed.

Commit to ship FCD in September 2008?

Motion 1. Move WG21/N2170=J16/07-0030, "Universal Character Names in Literals" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 1

unanimous consent

Motion 2. Move WG21/N2431=J16/07-0301, "A name for the null pointer: nullptr (revision 4)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 2

Motion 3. Move WG21/N2437=J16/07-0307, "Explicit Conversion Operator Draft Working Paper (revision 3)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 3

unanimous consent

Motion 4. Move WG21/N2429=J16/07-0194, "Concurrency memory model (revised again)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 4

unanimous consent

Motion 5. Move WG21/N2442=J16/07-0312, "Raw and Unicode String Literals; Unified Proposal (Rev. 2)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 5

unanimous consent

Motion 6. Move WG21/2439=J16/07-0309, "Extending move semantics to *this (revised wording)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 6

Motion 7. Move WG21/N2441=J16/07-0311, "Initializer lists WP wording (Revision 1)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Library Working Group

Hinnant presented Library Working Group status and reviewed formal motions to be made Friday (for formal motions, see 9.1, below).

Motion 1. Move the resolutions to the following issues from N2403 itno the C++0X Working Paper:

• 660 Missing Bitwise Operations
• 488 rotate throws away useful information
• 577 upper_bound(first, last, ...) cannot return last

Straw Poll: support for Motion 1

unanimous consent

Motion 2. Move N2434 "Standard Library Applications for Explicit Conversion Operators" into the C++0x Working Paper.

unanimous consent

Motion 3. Move N2435 "Explicit bool for Smart Pointers" the C++0X Working Paper.

Maurer pointed out that literal 0 and nullptr do not interact

Motion 4. Remove N2071 "Iostream manipulators for convenient extraction and insertion of struct tm objects" from TR2 and add into the C++0x Working Paper.

unanimous consent

Motion 5. Move N2401 "Code Conversion Facets for the Standard C++ Library" into the C++0x Working Paper.

Motion 6. Move N2427 "C++ Atomic Types and Operations" into the C++0X Working Paper.

unanimous consent

Motion 7. Move N2440 "Abandoning a Process" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 7

unanimous consent

Motion 8. Move N2436 "Small Allocator Fix-ups" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 8

unanimous consent

Motion 9. Move N2446: "scoped allocator model" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 9

Motion 10. Move N2408 "Simple Numeric Access Revision 2" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Straw Poll: support for Motion 10

unanimous consent

Motion 11. Move N2423 "Recommendations for Resolving Issues re [rand], Version 2" into the C++0x Working Paper to resolve LWG issues:

• 552 random_shuffle and its generator
• 699 N2111 changes min/max
• 654 Missing IO roundtrip for random number engines
• 678 Changes for [rand.req.eng]
• 608 Unclear seed_seq construction details
• 607 Concern about short seed vectors
• 677 Weaknesses in seed_seq::randomize
• 712 seed_seq::size no longer useful
• 655 Signature of generate_canonical not useful

Straw Poll: support for Motion 11

unanimous consent

Motion 12. Move N2409 "Proposed Resolutions for the Outstanding Issues in Chapter 28: Regular expressions library" into the C++0X Working Paper to resolve LWG issues:

• 524 regex named character classes and case-insensitivity don't mix
• 650 regex_token_iterator and const correctness
• 651 Missing preconditions for regex_token_iterator c'tors
• 652 regex_iterator and const correctness
• 682 basic_regex ctor takes InputIterator or ForwardIterator?
• 681 Operator functions impossible to compare are defined in [re.submatch.op]

Straw Poll: support for Motion 12

unanimous consent

Motion 13. Move N2422 "Diagnostics Issues (Rev. 2)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

unanimous consent

Motion 14. Appoint an editing committee consisting of Hinnant, Meredith, Crowl, and Rao to finalize wording of N2447 "Multi-threading Library for Standard C++" and appoint a review committee consisting of Stoughton, Boehm, Dos Reis, Brown, and Plauger to review the wording and upon approval subsequently move into the C++0X Working Paper."

Austern asked of the threading proposal whether they believed that the semantics of the proposal are settled. Stoughton replied that he is 90% certain that all the semantics are settled. Crowl expanded on this answer, noting that the wording needs care, but any questions about the semantics that may remain outstanding have obvious answers.

Becker also reported that "it's clear what the wording is trying to say."

Kühl indicated that the only semantic issue that is known to him is whether native handles should be included. Becker explained that the committee can take native handles out of the Working Draft at the next meeting if necessary.

Stoughton assured the group that if the editing committee or the review committee notices any significant semantic issue in the proposal, they will not forward the document to the project editor for integration into the next Working Draft.

Evolution Working Group

Evolution Working Group (EWG) will be making no formal motions Friday.

Concurrency Group

The Concurrency Group will be making no formal motions Friday.

Future meetings:

See 10.1, below.

7.2 Presentation and discussion of DRs ready to be voted on. Straw votes taken.

8. WG sessions continue

9. WG sessions continue

10. Review of the meeting

10.1 Formal motions, including DRs to be resolved.

Timing Motions

Motion SP1

WG21 resolves that for this revision of the C++ standard (aka "C++0x") the scope of the memory management extensions shall be constrained as follows:

• Include making some uses of disguised pointers undefined, and providing a small set of functions to exempt specific objects from this restriction and to designate pointer-free regions of memory (where these functions would have trivial implementations in a non-collected conforming implementation).
• Exclude explicit syntax or functions for garbage collection or related features such as finalization.

Motion SP2

WG21 resolves that for this revision of the C++ standard (aka "C++0x") the scope of concurrency extensions shall be constrained as follows:

• Include a memory model, atomic operations, threads, locks, condition variables, and asynchronous future values.
• Exclude thread pools, task launching, and reader-writer locks.

Core Working Group Motions

Motion 1. Move WG21/N2170=J16/07-0030, "Universal Character Names in Literals" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 2. Move WG21/N2431=J16/07-0301, "A name for the null pointer: nullptr (revision 4)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Miller noteed that there was a question that came up as to whether this proposal satisfied the LWG's requirements (conversion of literal 0 to nullptr issue), and that this question can be handled separately at the next meeting.

Motion 3. Move WG21/N2437=J16/07-0307, "Explicit Conversion Operator Draft Working Paper (revision 3)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 4. Move WG21/N2429=J16/07-0194, "Concurrency memory model (final revision)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 5. Move WG21/N2442=J16/07-0312, "Raw and Unicode String Literals; Unified Proposal (Rev. 2)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 6. Move WG21/2439=J16/07-0309, "Extending move semantics to *this (revised wording)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Library Working Group

Motion 1. Move the resolutions to the following issues from N2403 itno the C++0X Working Paper:

• 660 Missing Bitwise Operations
• 488 rotate throws away useful information
• 577 upper_bound(first, last, ...) cannot return last

Motion 2. Move N2434 "Standard Library Applications for Explicit Conversion Operators" into the C++0x Working Paper.

There is no Motion 3

Motion 4. Remove N2071 "Iostream manipulators for convenient extraction and insertion of struct tm objects" from TR2 and add into the C++0x Working Paper.

Motion 5. Move N2401 "Code Conversion Facets for the Standard C++ Library" into the C++0x Working Paper.

Merrill expressed the concern that this paper seemed to have no formal wording. Hinnant explained that the Project Editor was comfortable with the wording that appears in N2401. Becker confirmed this.

Motion 6. Move N2427 "C++ Atomic Types and Operations" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 7. Move N2440 "Abandoning a Process" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 8. Move N2436 "Small Allocator Fix-ups" into the C++0X Working Paper.

There is no motion 9

Motion 10. Move N2408 "Simple Numeric Access Revision 2" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 11. Move N2423 "Recommendations for Resolving Issues re [rand], Version 2" into the C++0x Working Paper to resolve LWG issues:

• 552 random_shuffle and its generator
• 699 N2111 changes min/max
• 654 Missing IO roundtrip for random number engines
• 678 Changes for [rand.req.eng]
• 608 Unclear seed_seq construction details
• 607 Concern about short seed vectors
• 677 Weaknesses in seed_seq::randomize
• 712 seed_seq::size no longer useful
• 655 Signature of generate_canonical not useful

Motion 12. Move N2409 "Proposed Resolutions for the Outstanding Issues in Chapter 28: Regular expressions library" into the C++0X Working Paper to resolve LWG issues:

• 524 regex named character classes and case-insensitivity don't mix
• 650 regex_token_iterator and const correctness
• 651 Missing preconditions for regex_token_iterator c'tors
• 652 regex_iterator and const correctness
• 682 basic_regex ctor takes InputIterator or ForwardIterator?
• 681 Operator functions impossible to compare are defined in [re.submatch.op]

Motion 13. Move N2422 "Diagnostics Issues (Rev. 2)" into the C++0X Working Paper.

Motion 14. Appoint an editing committee consisting of Howard Hinnant, Alisdair Meredith, PremAnand M Rao, and Lawrence Crowl to finalize wording of N2447 "Multi-threading Library for Standard C++" and appoint a review committee consisting of Pete Becker, Nick Stoughton, Hans Boehm, Gaby Dos Reis, Walter Brown, Bill Plauger, and Dave Abrahams to review the wording and upon approval forward to the project editor for incorporation into the C++0X Working Paper."

Spicer asked whether there will there be a paper that records the result of this activity. Hinnant explained that such a paper will be in the pre-Bellvue mailing.

10.2 Future meetings:

See 11.1, below.

10.3 Issues delayed until Saturday

None.

11. Plans for the future

11.1 Next meeting

Feb 24-29, 2008 in Bellvue, WA.

Caves reported that some of the alternative hotels in the area are booking up already.

Stoughton indicated a desire to have a meeting for the group responsible for a C++ binding to POSIX in Bellvue, possibly on the Sunday preceding the WG21 meeting.

11.2 Mailings

Nelson reported the following mailing deadlines:

post-meeting mailing	October 19, 2007
Midterm mailing	December 7, 2007
pre-Bellvue mailing	February 1, 2008

11.3 Following meetings

The following meetings are as follows:

1. June 8-13, 2008 in Sophia Antipolis, France
2. September 14-19, 2008 in the San Francisco Bay area -- this meeting will be co-located with WG14

Motion to adjourn

Unanimous consent.

Attendance