From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu May 5 17:25:50 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 199A1C178DC; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:25:50 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A811C178DA for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:25:44 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from cfexcas02.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTcLBd8aJyJ1Ah8PKnXluzCDko8STUBlR@postini.com; Thu, 05 May 2011 08:25:49 PDT Received: from fortran.us.cray.com (172.31.19.200) by cfexcas02.americas.cray.com (172.30.74.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4DC2C188.3030207@cray.com> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:26:00 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk" , fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4449) AW: PDTR on Further Interoperability References: <20110331154109.5070CC178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20110401003328.8B70BC178DA@www2.open-std.org> <20110401132710.09AE6C178DA@www2.open-std.org> <20110404114630.48DD0C178DC@www2.open-std.org> <20110505141344.CFDE1C178DA@www2.open-std.org> <166ED263DF83324D9A3BA67FB6772B2B12423BDB@BADWLRZ-SWMBX1.ads.mwn.de> <20110505151153.22A9CC178DA@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20110505151153.22A9CC178DA@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 5/5/11 10:11 AM, John Reid wrote: > Bader, Reinhold wrote: > >>> Unfortunately, May 1st has passed and we are not ready for a 3-week informal >>> WG5 ballot (item 3). Bill and I think that we need to abandon this plan. Instead, >>> Bill proposes a new plan: >>> >>> 1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits arising from >>> our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus. >>> >>> 2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until the end of May. >>> >>> 3. By the beginning of June, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base document >>> at the Garching meeting. >> >> This would be the consensus draft resulting from the review in 2, I assume? > > Yes. > >> Any contentious items then would be processed in step 4 via the usual paper >> submission procedure? It might be useful to somewhat extend the usual >> deadline for paper submission from 2 to 1 week before the meeting. > > Thanks for pointing this out. Dan is try hard to stop a flood of papers being > written at the last minute. I think it would be better to move steps 2 and 3 > forward by a few days to make the draft available for 4 weeks before the meeting: > While getting a flood of papers on the day before the meeting is problematic, I would rather have someone send a paper to the server a week before the meeting rather than holding it until after the meeting starts. So I would not be opposed, as a general policy, to changing the paper deadline to 1 week before the meeting start. > 1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits arising > from our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus. > > 2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until May 26. > > 3. By 30 May, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base document at the > Garching meeting. > > 4. The PDTR is constructed and approved during the meeting and the PDTR formal > starts soon afterwards. > > Is this OK, Bill? > Yes. Cheers, Bill > Regards, > > John. > -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101