From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Mar 31 17:41:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 26629C178E5; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:41:09 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mx1.net.stfc.ac.uk (mx1.net.stfc.ac.uk [130.246.135.223]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAFEC178E4 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:41:07 +0200 (CET DST) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by mx1.net.stfc.ac.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p2VFeqiZ003086; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:40:54 +0100 Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B11560D5; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:40:52 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4D94A084.7020004@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:40:52 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc10 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Processing the TR ballot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -2.599 : BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 130.246.135.223 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk WG5, The SC22 secretary has just asked how the TR is going and reminded me that the TR "is slated for 30 December 2011 cancellation". Our present plan (after the recent slippage) PDTR forwarded to SC22 2011-03 PDTR ballot initiated 2011-03 PDTR ballot comments available 2011-05 DTR constructed 2011-06 DTR ballot initiated 2011-07 DTR ballot results available 2011-10 TR published 2011-11 fits within this schedule. The WG5 informal vote is clearly opposed to sending N1845 forward as the PDTR today, so we have missed the March target. However, I said in my ballot "2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. Comment: These changes include suggestions for resolving the UTIs for which Van Synder's vote has not already suggested changes. I would much prefer WG5 to submit a revised document that resolves all the UTIs and makes other changes that the Interop group accepts." and Bill says in his ballot "I've been accumulating the various (and many) edits proposed to the TR as part of this informal Ballot. They seem to fall into these categories: 1) Typos (spelling, punctuation, etc.) 2) Non-controversial corrections to wrong statements or C program example syntax. 3) Wording changes that improve clarity, but do not make technical changes. 4) Reformatting the presentation of the function descriptions in 5.2.5. 5) Minor technical changes that address oversights in the current draft. 6) Technical changes on which there is not consensus. 7) Proposals for edits that are based on some misunderstanding and are unlikely to be accepted. My preference would be to create an updated draft based on the edits for categories 1-5, have a subgroup review the result as a PDTR candidate, and leave the comparatively small number of issues in category 6 for responses to the PDTR ballot and resolution at the June meeting." and says he thinks this can be done by April 8th, which would mean that the result would be available well before the WG5 meeting in Germany. I want us to do this. It will get countries to consider their positions before the meeting and the worst case scenario is that we have to create a new PDTR at the WG5 meeting. That would put the schedule back by 4 months (one J3 meeting), but the second PDTR would have a better chance of acceptance and ISO does allow a 6-month period of grace. The alternative is simply to say that we will create the PDTR at the WG5 meeting, but if we fail to do this or its vote fails, we will probably see this project cancelled (we might just possibly get away with an 8-month delay, but that would be highly dangerous). If you strongly object to this plan, please let me know at once. John.