From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Apr 4 13:46:29 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 C6611C3BA02; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:46:29 +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 A0530C178DC for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:46:27 +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 p34BkDq9004673; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:46:15 +0100 Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC8B560D5; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:46:13 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4D99AF85.8080006@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:46:13 +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: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4434) Processing the TR ballot References: <20110331154109.5070CC178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20110401003328.8B70BC178DA@www2.open-std.org> <20110401132710.09AE6C178DA@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20110401132710.09AE6C178DA@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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 David Muxworthy wrote: > On 1 Apr 2011, at 01:33, malcolm@nag-j.co.jp wrote: > >> We should not forward any draft as a PDTR without a positive WG5 vote. >> That has not yet been achieved. > > I agree. From the political point of view it is unfortunate that WG5 > cannot reach consensus but a PDTR ballot now is not going to solve the > problem unless a group from a country which is already participating > comes up with a creative solution. That could be done within WG5. Well, to avoid eventual cancellation, we must move faster. Here is an alternative plan and I think it is better. 1. Bill creates a new draft by the end of this week that includes all the items that do not need discussion. 2. The interop. email group takes ownership for 3 weeks to hash out the other issues and create a new pdf by 1 May. 3. We have a 3-week informal WG5 ballot on whether this new version is ready for PDTR ballot. 4. Bill creates a further new draft based on comments and the interop. email group checks it. 5a. If we have reached consensus, the PDTR ballot starts in late May or very early in June. The goal would be to get enough PDTR feedback before the meeting to create a tentative DTR for issue after the PDTR ballot finishes. 5b. Otherwise, we work hard before and at the meeting to reach consensus and start the PDTR ballot soon afterwards. The "base document" at this point will be the version created in step 4. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Anyone not in interop. email group who would like to participate is very welcome. Best wishes, John.