From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Jun  1 01:03:01 2017
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 D6A69358633; Thu,  1 Jun 2017 01:03:01 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 1434 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:03:01 CEST
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (mailhost.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.109])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A6535696E
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu,  1 Jun 2017 01:02:59 +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 v4VMcxmB002279
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 15:39:01 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5865) N2126
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170531211201.63EF43587D7@www.open-std.org>
References: <20170531211201.63EF43587D7@www.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:38:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1496270339.20046.66.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-37.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 Wed, 2017-05-31 at 22:11 +0100, John Reid wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I have just posted this document:
> 
> N2126 A Strategy for Reckoning the Content of the Next Revision (Nagle)
> 
> A copy is attached.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

I would add one thing to the process in Section V at the end:  There
ought to be a provision for retracting a feature and recomputing the
budget.