From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Dec 6 07:47:04 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 D29AB3587BF; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 07:47:04 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A24743568DB for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 07:46:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 4188 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2016 15:46:53 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2016 15:46:53 +0900 Message-ID: <9D8858E45FE34D899737C124DF55705E@Maru10> From: "Cohen Malcolm" To: "WG5" References: <20161203145421.0109935872B@www.open-std.org><20161205005951.30C88356AD6@www.open-std.org> <20161205094405.33C95358628@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20161205094405.33C95358628@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5821) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:46:55 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Hi John, >C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future >editorial processing This is not addressing my objection, not to mention it contradicts your previous sentence "all four clearly passed", as it says these have only conditionally passed, and that condition is currently not satisfied therefore these have not passed. Aside: J3 is supposed to get the technical details right on EVERY feature! There is nothing special about THESE features. We've swallowed enormous camels of features without stooping to the nonsense of conditional authorisation, why on earth are we straining at the gnats now? If you think the votes passed, and on the face of the voting figures one might indeed think that, for goodness sake just declare them passed. As for the comments, J3 members either (a) were the ones making the comments so will be pursuing them anyway if they think them important, or (b) have already responded to the comments saying they will do something about it. I see no need for any further coercion. Are you trying to say we have to take these ballot comments as official input and have to report back to WG5? That would be crazily bureaucratic for what is, after all, just a straw vote, not a meeting resolution. Or you just want to unnecessarily demand that J3 members do what they already said they would do? P.S. I am starting to regret my agreement that we could add these minor flourishes at all, and beginning to think we ought to have just ruled every one of them out of order at the last J3 meeting. Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: John Reid Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 6:43 PM To: WG5 Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5821) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot Cohen Malcolm wrote: > This is a vote whether to put something in the standard, or not. Well, all four clearly passed, so you have authority to put them all in the draft standard. I was expecting that the comments would be considered at the Feb. J3 meeting. How's this more precise wording? C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future editorial processing Cheers, John. > > The votes must either PASS or FAIL. I object in the strongest possible > terms to the nonsense that "It passes subject to something happening in > the > future." > > If a vote does not PASS the editor will not put the feature into the > standard, and given the timing that really rules it out of consideration > until the 2020 revision. > > Cheers, > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Reid > Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 11:54 PM > To: WG5 > Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5819) Result of straw ballot > > Dear all, > > Here is the tentative result of the ballot on four small technical > changes. Please let me know by Dec 8 if I have missed a ballot or made > any other error. > > Best wishes, > > John. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ukfortran mailing list > https://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran > > _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. ________________________________________________________________________ -- .............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.