From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Jun 20 16:56:16 2016 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 AD1503587DA; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:56:16 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp-out-2.tiscali.co.uk (smtp-out-2.tiscali.co.uk [62.24.135.130]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD5E356D1D for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:56:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] ([212.139.77.201]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id F0cWbwPbWfj6EF0cXbva0x; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:56:13 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [212.139.77.201] Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5732) Revision of the Standard To: sc22wg5@open-std.org References: <20160619183948.9DF5A358287@www.open-std.org> <20160620133126.A5099358762@www.open-std.org> From: John Reid Message-ID: <57680408.7060903@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:56:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160620133126.A5099358762@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMJUP7jwH0Z9YR81YZmkXrbCDNdOEChkqIV9acNPpMfKQbldS0mB/50Pl2na/rX9V9gMNc/JNyl4jWClNeoRiKIuWHaTaGBhYKAElA5Ds2jtRbOj/A7Q bVIL0jxvsqHsMA9/KRPu3Wok1pqwOFp/voHl7lj2TBaYNIY8VwKW8Y1qpsCstQWID1DMINTgEANJtyEJ5jgZqk2s1ll+H7iGy7I= Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk David, Your suggested change is fine by me. John. David Muxworthy wrote: > On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:39, John Reid wrote: > >> "In JTC 1, NP ballot is not required for the revision or amendment of an >> existing standard or Technical Specification, provided that the >> committee passes a resolution containing the following elements: >> 1) target dates; >> 2) confirmation of scope (including whether it will be expanded, in >> which case the process for new proposals shall apply); and >> 3) project editor(s) if already assigned." >> >> In turn this means that I just have to ask SC22 to pass the relevant >> resolution in September. I would still like to show SC22 our latest >> draft, but I don't think a ballot is needed. Does everyone agree with >> this? If so, item 5.1 of the minutes should be amended. > > I agree. I am afraid the draft minutes are incorrect anyway. It was > the revised ISO directives, not the JTC1 ones, that were being > referenced at the meeting, without taking account of the JTC1 > Supplement. The 2016 JTC1 Supplement has not yet been published but > it appears from the draft that the words quoted above (section 2.3.1) > are unchanged. > > The simplest fix to the minutes would be to delete the relevant > sentence, and to split the paragraph into two, making 5.1 read: > > "John Reid said he intended to submit a new work item proposal for > the revised standard at the SC22 meeting in September. > > Revised ISO Directives would require wording and format changes in > the document." > > David > > > > > _______________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 >