From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Sun Jul  3 20:17:06 2016
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id C66C73587BD; Sun,  3 Jul 2016 20:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.105])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2A93571C2
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Sun,  3 Jul 2016 20:16:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id u63IGt7p007583
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO);
	Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:16:56 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5743)  Units of measure
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org>
Cc: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <16B77158-ACBF-49E8-A4DD-1E04A7C59B59@nasa.gov>
References: <20160619135920.D0F3F358287@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160629112043.BF09F3587AF@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160629123517.185A635828D@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160629190123.72A8035859B@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160702105054.18596358745@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160702202059.B9618358745@www.open-std.org>
	 <16B77158-ACBF-49E8-A4DD-1E04A7C59B59@nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:16:55 -0700
Message-ID: <1467569815.11729.1.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-36.el6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2016-07-03 at 11:30 -0400, Tom Clune wrote:
> a shorter  cycle would provide the greatest opportunity to ensure that
> the priority list is optimized across the Fortran community and
> implemented in time to make corrections in the subsequent standard.

I was expecting a shorter cycle after 2008, but we spent several years
on WG23 nonsense.  We delayed gathering new features for three years,
and then did it in a helter-skelter manner that was nothing like the
organized way we did it in 2004.  Can we not do that again?