From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Apr 29 10:13:48 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id CFA539DB116; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:13:48 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-ot1-f43.google.com (mail-ot1-f43.google.com [209.85.210.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603EB357123 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:13:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f43.google.com with SMTP id z25so940534otq.13 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 01:13:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ihc4TCf/3UiYFI3Pu8nar+mXp2TinNNgU74vE5576hc=; b=d8N5JgGNOBXUwf4OhqNvAzk3qINwmcrGBbVONVPnGmfIs7WPFBoHAdKpNtA5O1vd2o we6+S6mRT2Q9qaHhYSP4HmVVFqD+L9B8nhMAv3G9e5fcOFNiDXVZ2mn0VOUfMgEyvbLe PFN0b5W2pOI/pRVUETmtLQUfr5JEbZPxHBuhtPueYoPDQC8eFxRBYPItCqlTQWcKkTPj uRaJFgAQ5QieE4g0jy+a+qmYHAYZgndcW0lPDyZXnvYSKSPkAENPEkOUSgr6ViONoxu8 YV27YLOj+2t7salYUcMvnGp1xMFTG2ZyObAfMd73hkkYZsHaKNHDP7j85oFh4PIOqtzr XnnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ihc4TCf/3UiYFI3Pu8nar+mXp2TinNNgU74vE5576hc=; b=qcS994e7fMOSJMhe/Ggor1QsN7XdR3drvOYRmOqbu++0ZlViGvt1RaNdAEUgYIlr2y 8+l2GFEUa/+Bwgtb3XxoPQwYKzLDGLpb7+Gae95DiZFf5g/Hhr79uBUwSDEcp3+cNUu2 cEzTPuKoG6BBF/w+rDQRjcjjbxWb9mYmc0kT1+9YXOLSlAoK4uXWI/V0B6HifFO6kLPo YPcpKAkivJG4fbY54kZgbYNtZqIErngTQhzfijXf5Dg4Jy+PRxtHWM/ZScC3Y1XonkO/ qcj1FwG6JneLhiqnRfeOFwpX+1AEoRKIMT7I1qITgTc/KLHZCP26qCPPlKcCOUTf/7VN hMOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuauYlbnvWvDmHjARTSq/eVVFB0oQEHoceLPfR1RRFa75CnAIOgf hc44+Y8m51M0YTAX+CQhLHyRuC0blzGpOVWmx7M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJWHbpWoj+mcr5WOh2Fl/r8uc11eWjPgen024DiBh3w8abarcflft8P+/3N9we9tWalTjqWioFh1RvEoH8OY9o= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6295:: with SMTP id x21mr25186826otk.291.1588148026525; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 01:13:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200428004737.19A4F9DB145@www.open-std.org> <20200428114456.5CCDA3568A1@www.open-std.org> <999548a1-9f82-418c-b8be-1fd87f94d3be@www.fastmail.com> <20200428172340.851A13568A1@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20200428172340.851A13568A1@www.open-std.org> From: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 01:13:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [J3] (SC22WG5.6175) October meeting visa invitation letter To: General J3 interest list Cc: WG5 List , Steve Lionel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8cc6005a4698652" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --000000000000f8cc6005a4698652 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The ISO C++ committee bought (high quality and portable) projectors for our meetings about two years ago; volunteers and committee officers are responsible for transporting them to and from meetings. I have one of them. I am planning to be at Fortran meetings (both WG5 and PL22.3) going forward= . How about I ask the ISO C++ Foundation (who owns the projectors) if it would be alright for me to bring it to the PL22.3 meetings, so that we have it available if we need it? If we don't need it, no big deal. -- Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash US Programming Language Standards (PL22) Chair ISO C++ Library Evolution Chair CppCon and C++Now Program Chair CUDA Core C++ Libraries (Thrust, CUB, libcu++) Lead @ NVIDIA -- On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:23 Steve Lionel via J3 wrote: > On 4/28/2020 12:31 PM, Ond=C5=99ej =C4=8Cert=C3=ADk via J3 wrote: > > Thanks for this initiative. Having a projector and a telecon capability > would be extremely beneficial. > > I'm not convinced a projector is needed, with presentation sharing. > Often a projector is available at WG5 venues - as I wrote earlier I'm > not aware that the Las Vegas Residence Inn (J3 venue) has one we can > use, but maybe it does (for a fee, I am sure.) What I usually see, when > local attendees are watching a projection and remote attendees are > watching what is shared, is that the presenter talks to the room and > not to the whole audience, and sometimes points to things on the > projection screen leaving the remote viewers clueless. I suppose video > can help with that, but that adds complexity. > > Telecon capability, though, is going to be required. The question is who > will pay for it, something I am working on. J3 can buy equipment with > funds from meeting fees, but it would be nice if INCITS or even ISO can > provide some funding. There's also a logistical issue with the way J3 > operates in subgroups that tend to meet together at odd times and then > the members go off by themselves to work on papers. That needs a > rethink, and I'd love to see some concrete suggestions in this area. > Speaking of which... > > > Thanks also for the willingness to reevaluate how J3 works. I agree > that's needed. If you wouldn't mind, can you please elaborate more what y= ou > mean by "time-shifted engagement"? Let's discuss the details. > > > That was Nathan's term - I took it as meaning getting away from doing > the development only at J3 meetings, which is what I have hopes your > Github can help with, as I discuss in my latest blog post. It will > require a willingness across J3 to change the way we work, and needs to > be established collectively. Really this is a J3 thing and not WG5, > unless WG5 wants to "take back" technical development of the standard > from J3, in which case we have additional issues to deal with, and I > don't think that would be productive. > > There is a great deal to be said, however, for the personal interactions > and exchanges of ideas that happen when everyone is together in the same > room,and chatting 1-1 in corridors, etc. Physical meetings are more > efficient and encourage attendees to devote most of their attention to > the standard work at hand. That simply doesn't happen with virtual > meetings. But members who want to do the work, even though they're > unable to attend in person, should still be able to participate. > > In my mind, the biggest step we can take is to get work-list papers > written between meetings, with tuning by small teams of interested > parties, so that when we do meet in person we can get things done > faster. We don't need any equipment to do that, just a shift of mindset > and a willingness to siphon off some time from "the day job" to make it > happen. (I understand, though, that some members simply may not be in a > position where they are allowed to devote resources to J3 between > meetings.) I'll note that often J3 votes to change or choose among > approaches with straw votes, so we can't simply present papers as a > "take it or leave it". Again, needs some thought and discussion. > > Steve > > P.S. Note that I am following up to the WG5 list where this discussion > started. J3 subscribers (the WG5 list forwards to the J3 list) need to > remember to replace the J3 list address with WG5 when following up. > > --000000000000f8cc6005a4698652 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The ISO C++ committee bought (high quality and portable) = projectors for our meetings about two years ago; volunteers and committee o= fficers are responsible for transporting them to and from meetings. I have = one of them.

I am planning to be at Fortran meetings (both WG5 and PL22.3) going forwar= d.

How about I ask the I= SO C++ Foundation (who owns the projectors) if it would be alright for me t= o bring it to the PL22.3 meetings, so that we have it available if we need = it? If we don't need it, no big deal.

--
Bryce Adelstein Lelbac= h aka wash
US Programming Language Standards (PL22) Chair
ISO C++ Lib= rary Evolution Chair
CppCon and C++Now Program Chair
CUDA Core C++ Li= braries (Thrust, CUB, libcu++) Lead @ NVIDIA
--
<= br>
On Tue,= Apr 28, 2020, 10:23 Steve Lionel via J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
On 4/28/2020 12:31 PM, Ond=C5=99ej =C4=8Cert=C3=ADk vi= a J3 wrote:
> Thanks for this initiative. Having a projector and a telecon capabilit= y would be extremely beneficial.

I'm not convinced a projector is needed, with presentation sharing. Often a projector is available at WG5 venues - as I wrote earlier I'm <= br> not aware that the Las Vegas Residence Inn (J3 venue) has one we can
use, but maybe it does (for a fee, I am sure.) What I usually see, when local attendees are watching a projection and remote attendees are
watching what is shared,=C2=A0 is that the presenter talks to the room and =
not to the whole audience, and sometimes points to things on the
projection screen leaving the remote viewers clueless. I suppose video
can help with that, but that adds complexity.

Telecon capability, though, is going to be required. The question is who will pay for it, something I am working on. J3 can buy equipment with
funds from meeting fees, but it would be nice if INCITS or even ISO can provide some funding. There's also a logistical issue with the way J3 <= br> operates in subgroups that tend to meet together at odd times and then
the members go off by themselves to work on papers. That needs a
rethink, and I'd love to see some concrete suggestions in this area.=C2= =A0
Speaking of which...

> Thanks also for the willingness to reevaluate how J3 works. I agree th= at's needed. If you wouldn't mind, can you please elaborate more wh= at you mean by "time-shifted engagement"? Let's discuss the d= etails.
>
That was Nathan's term - I took it as meaning getting away from doing <= br> the development only at J3 meetings, which is what I have hopes your
Github can help with, as I discuss in my latest blog post. It will
require a willingness across J3 to change the way we work, and needs to be established collectively. Really this is a J3 thing and not WG5,
unless WG5 wants to "take back" technical development of the stan= dard
from J3, in which case we have additional issues to deal with, and I
don't think that would be productive.

There is a great deal to be said, however, for the personal interactions and exchanges of ideas that happen when everyone is together in the same room,and chatting 1-1 in corridors, etc. Physical meetings are more
efficient and encourage attendees to devote most of their attention to
the standard work at hand. That simply doesn't happen with virtual
meetings. But members who want to do the work, even though they're
unable to attend in person, should still be able to participate.

In my mind, the biggest step we can take is to get work-list papers
written between meetings, with tuning by small teams of interested
parties, so that when we do meet in person we can get things done
faster. We don't need any equipment to do that, just a shift of mindset=
and a willingness to siphon off some time from "the day job" to m= ake it
happen. (I understand, though, that some members simply may not be in a position where they are allowed to devote resources to J3 between
meetings.) I'll note that often J3 votes to change or choose among
approaches with straw votes, so we can't simply present papers as a "take it or leave it". Again, needs some thought and discussion.<= br>
Steve

P.S. Note that I am following up to the WG5 list where this discussion
started. J3 subscribers (the WG5 list forwards to the J3 list) need to
remember to replace the J3 list address with WG5 when following up.

--000000000000f8cc6005a4698652--