From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Apr 29 10:37:49 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 387109DB116; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:37:49 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 397 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:37:47 CEST Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4C4E358A19 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 88045 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2020 17:31:05 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2020 17:31:05 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "'WG5 List'" 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> <20200428195502.E072C3568BB@www.open-std.org> <5a392c04-ddab-46e6-8024-ae89b8658d29@www.fastmail.com> <20200428225409.F33B13587B3@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [J3] (SC22WG5.6179) [ukfortran] October meeting visa invitation letter Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:31:05 +0900 Message-ID: <01c601d61e00$86775890$936609b0$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C7_01D61E4B.F65F0090" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQLEBe5985Y6ylPWwnOkUPuROQ8BfAIdnPisAXfSTb0BfYp1TQGrddsTAfCQRSsCv9g4MwM05tTnAg1PpommLmZ1MA== Content-Language: en-gb Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01C7_01D61E4B.F65F0090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > The community is on GitHub.=20 =20 Well, *a* community is on GitHub. A substantial one even. =20 > I'm afraid I don't think this sweeping generalisation is productive, = or fair. =20 Neither is being told we=E2=80=99re not part of The community. =20 Now, I don=E2=80=99t think this was the intended meaning of the first = poster, but it was a natural and obvious interpretation, so I understand = Anton=E2=80=99s poor reaction. Of course the committee has already = started to take this =E2=80=9CGitHub community=E2=80=9D seriously, and = welcomed its input. That welcome is absolutely *not* being withdrawn. =20 However, at this point I am not convinced that GitHub should become the = central way that committee work should be done, and I agree with Bill = that switching over to it right away seems more like a revolution than = evolution. =20 > works just fine with teams spread over many timezones =20 Well, no. it does not work =E2=80=9Cjust fine=E2=80=9D for in-depth = discussions the way we have traditionally done with subgroups. GitHub = and all other technological solutions do not in fact solve the basic = timezone issues that Bill pointed out. Such technologies can certainly = help, but they cannot do everything, and furthermore are not = =E2=80=9Cneutral=E2=80=9D in their effect =E2=80=93 not everyone is = comfortable *or effective* with them. =20 Maybe in the end we will end up doing everything on GitHub, and maybe = not. But for now, I would prefer that we =E2=80=9Chasten = slowly=E2=80=9D. =20 Cheers, --=20 ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_01C7_01D61E4B.F65F0090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> The = community is on GitHub.

Well, = *a* community is on GitHub. A substantial one = even.

> I'm afraid I don't think this sweeping = generalisation is productive, or fair.

Neither is = being told we=E2=80=99re not part of The community.

Now, I = don=E2=80=99t think this was the intended meaning of the first poster, = but it was a natural and obvious interpretation, so I understand = Anton=E2=80=99s poor reaction. Of course the committee has already = started to take this =E2=80=9CGitHub community=E2=80=9D seriously, and = welcomed its input. That welcome is absolutely *not* being = withdrawn.

However, at this point I am not convinced that GitHub = should become the central way that committee work should be done, and I = agree with Bill that switching over to it right away seems more like a = revolution than evolution.

> works = just fine with teams spread over many timezones

Well, no. it = does not work =E2=80=9Cjust fine=E2=80=9D for in-depth discussions the = way we have traditionally done with subgroups. GitHub and all other = technological solutions do not in fact solve the basic timezone issues = that Bill pointed out. Such technologies can certainly help, but they = cannot do everything, and furthermore are not =E2=80=9Cneutral=E2=80=9D = in their effect =E2=80=93 not everyone is comfortable *or = effective* with them.

Maybe in the = end we will end up doing everything on GitHub, and maybe not. But for = now, I would prefer that we =E2=80=9Chasten = slowly=E2=80=9D.

Cheers,

--

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG = Oxford/Tokyo.

------=_NextPart_000_01C7_01D61E4B.F65F0090--