From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Sep 4 11:50:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 3A54C35693A; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:50:29 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.53]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908BE356931 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:50:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 808684068/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_STATIC/TalkTalk_Customer/92.21.189.78/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 92.21.189.78 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120826 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBANfNRVBcFb1O/2dsb2JhbAANOL5PAQEBBDgbJQEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwKvBopBiQaLDYcyA5VZhUyNMg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,366,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="808684068" Received: from host-92-21-189-78.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([92.21.189.78]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2012 10:50:26 +0100 Message-ID: <5045CEE3.7080805@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:50:27 +0100 From: John Reid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120826 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 CC: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4757) [ukfortran] Provisional result of interpretationsballot 3, N1933 References: <20120902155846.8D773356906@www.open-std.org><20120904035317.E42823568FA@www.open-std.org> <20120904082211.9DB90356931@www.open-std.org> <20120904091220.C22A1356931@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20120904091220.C22A1356931@www.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 Malcolm Cohen wrote: >> On Sep 4 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote: >>> >>> I think that F03/0065 ballot result should be "C", since it is 7 Y and >>> 2 N. >> >>From that, I assume that there are no formal rules. > > You are mistaken. > > It passed the vote 7-2. However, the formal rules allow for /INTERP subgroup to > withdraw an interp that would have passed the vote if the negative votes or > positive comments raise a new technical issue that in their view requires > further consideration. > > Thus normally whenever there is any negative vote or adverse technical comment, > the provisional result is declared to be "C"; that is conditionally passes > subject to /INTERP subgroup review of the comments. No. This is an informal WG5 ballot and the Convener has discretion re the result. A small number of no votes, perhaps only one, can raise a point that needs to be considered. Stan acts in a similar way for J3 letter ballots on interps. Our aim throughout is caution - not to accept an interp. as finished until we are as certain as possible that the answer has full consensus. Our good record over corrigenda ballots at the SC22 level vouches for the success of this strategy. In this case, Nick's strong view suggests to me that "N" is the correct outcome. But I am very happy to hear opinions from other people. Cheers, John.