From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Apr 23 09:46:56 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 D53A7358399; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:46:56 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net (out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net [62.24.202.75]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B123568D6 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:46:52 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAFpvV1MCYXoH/2dsb2JhbAANTMhegS2DGQEBAQQ4GyURCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0IArNQng6GFheNdhEBV4Q5BJh1lgeBcQ X-IPAS-Result: ApMBAFpvV1MCYXoH/2dsb2JhbAANTMhegS2DGQEBAQQ4GyURCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0IArNQng6GFheNdhEBV4Q5BJh1lgeBcQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,910,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="129656810" Received: from host-2-97-122-7.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([2.97.122.7]) by out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2014 08:46:52 +0100 Message-ID: <53576FE6.3090108@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:46:46 +0100 From: John Reid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5237) [ukfortran] Ballot result References: <534F9B1B.6090704@stfc.ac.uk> <20140422120812.E37F2356867@www.open-std.org> <20140423071719.2FDA53568D6@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20140423071719.2FDA53568D6@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: > John Reid wrote: >> I would like to ask J3 to prepare a revised version for approval by WG5 >> at the end of the June meeting without a further ballot. > ... >> No-one has objected this idea, so I have added a paragraph to this effect. > > Although approval by WG5 at the end of the June meeting is a laudable aim, I > don't think we should commit to that (nor did I think I needed to object). If > we reach consensus early enough in the meeting, and have a final document in our > hands by Wednesday night (or maybe Thursday 9am at the very very latest), it > *might* be achievable. Otherwise we won't have time to read it properly. It's > more important to get it right than to get it out. Yes, we may decide at the meeting that we need another email ballot, but the aim is to avoid it. Actually, I don't think we have any chance of achieving this aim without significant email discussion beforehand. I am very pleased that the coarray list has been active over the last few days. Cheers, John.