From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Sun Nov 12 01:56:32 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 D9C2B3589AA; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:56:32 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com (mail-qk0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C1F358385
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:56:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id a142so16022767qkb.5
        for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=stevelionel.com; s=google;
        h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
         :content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
        bh=s+blOExQh3krqeaYxrUUmQnPGsyCcJKvB/3alExyqGU=;
        b=XJS/6nByenT3NNRImmpy1zzecFICqKHICn8aMzUKmVwY+0/QWzokkb1NYQdCypyY1C
         bvcfw0ImVuZvcT2UgvHkGTxsVVffx0Et07sOnZORIJM3xw53f/nQZwwOclBejCLjDsFA
         XqsbsG1eAXkBfrxMtuFICtsArSA9lF6bKdqbw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent
         :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
        bh=s+blOExQh3krqeaYxrUUmQnPGsyCcJKvB/3alExyqGU=;
        b=t+/QA+U0xlAA/IuG5T/pnZFlW6Dglu9jw2NGgcLdQrcFuI/ECAerNcMANkhBoVVF2a
         we0Hx/U5P5dCbyw/ruyaYecNtjX522LJLtD66nBO57ehYD9RsEOignUKPt/H4jtF1cSs
         o0QnbjwzxE/+3RIw84+818QbT7dMas8NBZZ0GPK6GNbAAOCk3H7zm+6ZZWRXfW1olzBi
         2Neq4Fmb4BhSgKm4swYLrw/WYHVVJc6B4jZdBYaUb2fF9NH+ercAaKj3I9br6zT8rCxL
         3ozukKIRNTPoGImXJ04iRE2M8KCfcNVS/TttACMPNka60jNKgiZSlNrMBmY1l6IJQqjf
         Knyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6BIzgA88zSLdCTDnXrtDFncMxEF/MVbJHnTZ8Nip0eyFRqec9M
	9vwp6P6F2TS6fwqiHz1r2nyK5fbcVFc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZt9AK49jz55VIlTCZbWaLKoGbuoQhcNLV9c55Iqwhoic+Czrvju8yYVJMQ/YB+6H+L8UPGug==
X-Received: by 10.55.16.169 with SMTP id 41mr8214994qkq.170.1510448190113;
        Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.137] (pool-71-168-105-188.cncdnh.fast11.myfairpoint.net. [71.168.105.188])
        by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n145sm6587341qke.38.2017.11.11.16.56.28
        for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:56:28 -0800 (PST)
To: WG5 List <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
From: Steve Lionel <steve@stevelionel.com>
Subject: Results of WG5 straw poll
X-Clacks-Overhead:  GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <4e39d61c-eb6f-3859-a4df-e6a787981a58@stevelionel.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:56:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks to everyone who participated in the recent WG5 straw poll - I 
received 25 responses between the ISO web site "consultation" and 
emailed responses.

1. There were no objections to making the three technical changes.

2. There were no objections to submitting a DIS for ballot now. I have 
to learn how to do that, once Malcolm has the document ready.

3. On the question of calling the in-progress standard "Fortran 2018" 
instead of "Fortran 2015", the vote was 17 in favor, 5 against and 3 
abstains. That is "clear direction", as J3 likes to say. This question 
received many comments; The majority in favor cited the "perception of 
Fortran as obsolete" that would be made worse by sticking with the 2015 
name.  As several respondents noted, the informal name of the standard 
has changed multiple times before, so it isn't as if we'd never done 
this in the past. So... Fortran 2018 it is. (I'll also note that I heard 
no objections to my suggestion of referring to the next revision as 
"Fortran 202X", so that we don't encounter this problem the next time.)

Steve

P.S. I will turn this into a WG5 N-document, including the questions and 
comments. I'll also write up the name changes for comp.lang.fortran, 
comp-fortran-90 and the LinkedIn Fortran group. Any others I should know 
about? The WG5 web site will also reflect the new names.

