From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Apr 17 18:32:04 2014 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 1B2BD35862B; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:32:04 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C14E356DCB for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:32:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 09:31:34 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,879,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="494867013" Received: from orsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.130]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 09:31:34 -0700 Received: from orsmsx114.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.10) by ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:31:34 -0700 Received: from orsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.44]) by ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.10]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:31:33 -0700 From: "Whitlock, Stan" To: WG5 CC: "Whitlock, Stan" Subject: RE: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5230) Ballot result - did the DTS 18508 ballot pass or fail? Thread-Topic: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5230) Ballot result - did the DTS 18508 ballot pass or fail? Thread-Index: Ac9aWh33mlOgrItESdmqyQyViI8Ozg== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:31:33 +0000 Message-ID: <4AA982B1265F43408480F737BE12F4D35F8CC18A@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk John - I agree that we haven't reached consensus on TS 18508 so the N2012 b= allot should fail. I also think the strategy of J3 revising the TS at the = June meeting and then having one more ballot is a reasonable way forward. Thanks /Stan -----Original Message----- From: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortr= an.org] On Behalf Of John Reid Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:13 AM To: WG5 Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5230) Ballot result WG5, I am not sure what result to attribute to the ballot. While the tally is 6-= 4-2, I am inclined to say that it has failed - we have not reached consensu= s. Nevertheless, the comments are far less severe this time and I would lik= e to ask J3 to prepare a revised version for approval by WG5 at the end of = the June meeting without a further ballot. It would still mean that we are behind our agreed schedule (see N1979): Edits agreed by J3 2013-10 J3 WG5 ballot of draft 2013-10 PDTS ballot initiated 2013-11 Instead we would have: Edits agreed by J3 2014-06 J3 WG5 ballot of draft 2014-06 WG5 meeting PDTS ballot initiated 2014-07 Let's do our best to avoid getting any further behind. John. _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3