From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Dec 9 18:11:31 2024 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 38F23357068; Mon, 9 Dec 2024 18:11:31 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-vk1-f178.google.com (mail-vk1-f178.google.com [209.85.221.178]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F9B356B58 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2024 18:11:30 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-51623968932so644982e0c.1 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lbl.gov; s=google; t=1733764289; x=1734369089; darn=open-std.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Q7wAW/yAjgARK6SQ5AUxSGX/rQJkSPcGtDd3+29d1uw=; b=XXP69T9/iJ139vua9L4VpoZDh0pNacFYzuJWr6tYysmKJkGfRD3niuRqjj5yokMS7X TPU+jA62kquKmflCTWRBggX06sPfx1nvX3QMnRwe/bpAR1lTwVLige++CvYdG64IK9ym oaXz8jBpMyVBlQ86zqOVZgqH5T5D0s5Y5BLuE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1733764289; x=1734369089; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Q7wAW/yAjgARK6SQ5AUxSGX/rQJkSPcGtDd3+29d1uw=; b=IjeZYI8l/Mw5UPQOrEmEJ7yyLwuEyguKlNKsMN6LFsoAR5q0cnevk1i5K9xynyT+13 vAq9VPK+YgLfS2VQfenwJAR36cs+7owFI09UPuCEudc7BBTRwTa0byxQItx6veGPJ4us B3Yt6vpDjdrNarlnGcMS9kzAVNzw507mpXOQGXJVO5uTdtmYwTq3FnV+FCZUOc3zYVwY NVSEH8Tyj0PYsYYKU/UmePkF3SEPOz55s+acuLw1g7VSr124ebYhPf8joG7esvpTHlsS OHAeWR/FV/S8O2lpvwVLVyPv6iM2mXXf144D0af521U+CUi1oeSorzX3+V2PZqSHq/Lj ioow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz8ejTx117Ov4dc7YZA8Dyzk7lsetp1OhHMTurktLnAJF1UNGRI Q6rc1OkfiXFJMKY+XsfgL6bb8O82Acl+/8xP4FvXqriXukIS6A18TL9m5h23rwJJtIbQ8WakiAU 700qzCIroILhi5SyHVjW1u7mCdOVf/QxHZ6m6TKW0A6yOcWi7+HIhASilm3t+B465IV76ZyG4Np tOpKY5a1IRMvN6/eLubr3MoHCnMA3MWvb2kPS4NIuovLfKZi+5VQnBJow6cxmEoWQz72J95KER3 mZTSXm1kqRsutBRhzBdFDZWLTrr X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuic3z7mDZLu3hQfhDr+Mek7aBpzyIZaggLBPo51uJicxzwqRht9VNlnVrh4YZ J2dgzK6+5AmPuoJcCenpjlcYeDwVs/5I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHlX3oATHBjD1D059WtfZZZJFzFuBDf0EyYY8T3R9NPvJdbsIMPkohWh3btxccHfa06U3PKsSNKy7xvcMFx7oI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:82a7:b0:518:89d9:dd99 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-51889da1076mr1653543e0c.3.1733764289209; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20241206235331.5C35D357007@www.open-std.org> <20241207112057.4E0A1357068@www.open-std.org> <20241207175010.469CA35708F@www.open-std.org> <20241209135205.F297E35702F@www.open-std.org> <20241209164714.A35D3357084@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20241209164714.A35D3357084@www.open-std.org> From: Damian Rouson Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:11:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [J3] [SC22WG5.6645] 2025 WG5/J3 meeting To: General J3 interest list Cc: WG5 List , "Brady, Christopher" , Steve Lionel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009550ae0628d9741d" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --0000000000009550ae0628d9741d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I garbled the logic in my first paragraph. My primary point is that it=E2= =80=99s not a good practice for the committee to reject so many offered weeks because one person can=E2=80=99t make them work. Besides the week of the J= une 23 and the week of June 30, many more options were offered. If we want to go back to LBL hosting, that=E2=80=99s fine. If we are going= to have a discussion about alternatives, we should consider all of the alternatives for all of the group with no one person having a veto. Such a consideration probably requires a poll, not emails. Let=E2=80=99s either g= o back to LBL or have a better discussion about the alternatives. Either approach is better than what we=E2=80=99re doing. Damian On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 08:47 Steve Lionel via J3 wrote: > Damian, Chris is saying that the week of the 23rd DOESN'T work - it does > work for me. He had earlier suggested the week of June 30, which I can > also do, but others reasonably noted that this covers a US holiday, which > may be an issue for some. Unfortunately I have unchangeable commitments f= or > the July and August weeks. > > I've been trying to pin down arrangements for 2025 since before last > June's meeting, which makes this all the more frustrating. In the more > distant past we've arranged WG5 meetings two years in advance, but we als= o > had more members offer to host. Six months notice of dates is NOT enough > for some members, and as we've seen it can be problematic for hosts, too. > ISO wants us to schedule meetings two years out (which is why we have a > placeholder for 2026 at present), and I'd like to see if we can get back = to > that. > > I think that the availability of lodging is a critical piece of this. > > Steve > > > On 12/9/2024 11:16 AM, Damian Rouson via J3 wrote: > > Chris, unless I=E2=80=99m misunderstanding, your response presumes that t= he week > of the 23rd is the only week that works. Steve is the only person who ha= s > indicated that week doesn=E2=80=99t work. > > We=E2=80=99re happy to host at LBL, but I care more about the workings of= the > committee than I do about where the meeting is held. When you have > generously research and offered so many options, I don=E2=80=99t think it= =E2=80=99s a good > idea for the committee to reject all of those options because of one pers= on > can=E2=80=99t make it no matter who that person is. I might be the most = vocal and > least shy, but I=E2=80=99m confident that I=E2=80=99m not alone in this o= pinion. > > Damian > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 08:09 Brady, Christopher > wrote: > >> I should just add that I have asked the conference people at Warwick wha= t >> other (if any) dates in that general time have fully booked accommodatio= n >> but I don't have an answer yet. I think that the 23rd being booked is a >> random unusual event, but I can't guarantee yet that somehow they aren't >> being booked out fully six months in advance. I really don't want to bac= k >> out at this point, but unless people are willing to take the risk that >> they'd have to stay in a hotel a bus ride away from the university then >> then it might be better to go back to the LBL plan. >> >> Chris >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) >> *Sent:* 09 December 2024 3:06 PM >> *To:* Damian Rouson >> *Cc:* General J3 interest list ; WG5 List < >> sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Brady, Christopher >> >> *Subject:* Re: [BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 >> WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley >> >> >> Of course =E2=80=93 just meant that it may not be as simple as naming an >> alternate. >> >> >> >> - Tom >> >> >> >> *From: *Damian Rouson >> *Date: *Monday, December 9, 2024 at 10:00=E2=80=AFAM >> *To: *Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) >> *Cc: *General J3 interest list , WG5 List < >> sc22wg5@open-std.org>, Brady, Christopher >> *Subject: *Re: [BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 >> WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley >> >> If that's the case, then it's a bug in the rules, but we're discussing >> meetings that are more than six months away. I'd be surprised if the >> requisite training couldn't happen between now and the meeting >> >> >> >> Damian >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 5:58=E2=80=AFAM Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) < >> thomas.l.clune@nasa.gov> wrote: >> >> While missing Steve=E2=80=99s presence would be unfortunate in itself, i= t may not >> be so simple to arrange a proxy. I suspect there is some training that >> ISO expects the convener to have completed. >> >> >> >> =C2=B7 Tom >> >> >> >> *From: *J3 on behalf of Damian >> Rouson via J3 >> *Date: *Monday, December 9, 2024 at 8:52=E2=80=AFAM >> *To: *General J3 interest list >> *Cc: *Damian Rouson , WG5 List , >> Brady, Christopher >> *Subject: *[BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 >> meeting in Berkeley >> >> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of NASA. Please take care >> when clicking links or opening attachments. Use the "Report Message" >> button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC. >> >> >> >> But there are still all the other weeks. I think we need something >> analogous to a Doodle poll but for weeks instead of the usual hourly tim= e >> slots. My sense is that most weeks work for most people. We may need a >> proxy for the convener, but it doesn=E2=80=99t seem fair to turn down al= l the other >> weeks because one person can only make it one week out of so many option= s. >> >> >> >> Damian >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 03:24 Brady, Christopher via J3 < >> j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote: >> >> Hello all. I'm very sorry to have to say that after all of this back and >> forth it appears that there has been a miscommunication about the >> availability of the accommodation at Warwick for that week. It looks as >> though somehow the night of the 23rd was completely booked out in both o= f >> the conference centers while I was talking to our conferencing teams and >> now is unavailable. >> >> >> >> I'm really sorry to have to do this, after having already made so much >> noise here, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to say that we can't >> offer to host it at Warwick on the dates that work for people. >> >> >> >> I must say that this is very much not my usual experience with Warwick >> conferences who are generally excellent, and I can only assume that this >> was a consequence of my trying to get this idea together very fast. >> >> >> >> Apologies for giving everyone the runaround on this, >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org on >> behalf of Steve Lionel >> *Sent:* 07 December 2024 5:50 PM >> *To:* WG5 List ; Brady, Christopher < >> C.S.Brady@warwick.ac.uk> >> *Subject:* [ukfortran] [SC22WG5.6636] [J3] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 >> meeting in Berkeley >> >> >> >> Looking at Google Maps, I don't see any hotels within reasonable walking >> distance of the Warwick campus. Have I missed something? >> >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ukfortran mailing list -- ukfortran@accu.org >> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s >> >> > --0000000000009550ae0628d9741d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I garbled the logic in my first paragraph.=C2=A0 My prima= ry point is that it=E2=80=99s not a good practice for the committee to reje= ct so many offered weeks because one person can=E2=80=99t make them work.= =C2=A0 Besides the week of the June 23 and the week of June 30, many more o= ptions were offered.=C2=A0

If we want to go back to LBL hosting, that=E2=80=99s fine.=C2=A0 If we a= re going to have a discussion about alternatives, we should consider all of= the alternatives for all of the group with no one person having a veto.=C2= =A0 Such a consideration probably requires a poll, not emails.=C2=A0 Let=E2= =80=99s either go back to LBL or have a better discussion about the alterna= tives. Either approach is better than what we=E2=80=99re doing.=C2=A0
=

Damian

On Mon, Dec 9, 202= 4 at 08:47 Steve Lionel via J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Damian, Chris is saying that the week of the 23rd DOESN'T work - it does work for me.=C2=A0 He had earl= ier suggested the week of June 30, which I can also do, but others reasonably noted that this covers a US holiday, which may be an issue for some. Unfortunately I have unchangeable commitments for the July and August weeks.

I've been trying to pin down arrangements for 2025 since before last June's meeting, which makes this all the more frustrating. In the more distant past we've arranged WG5 meetings two years in advance, but we also had more members offer to host. Six months notice of dates is NOT enough for some members, and as we've seen it can be problematic for hosts, too. ISO wants us to schedule meetings two years out (which is why we have a placeholder for 2026 at present), and I'd like to see if we can get back to that.

I think that the availability of lodging is a critical piece of this.

Steve


On 12/9/2024 11:16 AM, Damian Rouson via J3 wrote:
=20
Chris, unless I=E2=80=99m misunderstanding, your re= sponse presumes that the week of the 23rd is the only week that works.=C2= =A0 Steve is the only person who has indicated that week doesn=E2=80=99= t work.=C2=A0

We=E2=80=99re happy to host at LBL, but I care more= about the workings of the committee than I do about where the meeting is held.=C2=A0 When you have generously research and offered so man= y options, I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s a good idea for the com= mittee to reject all of those options because of one person can=E2=80=99t mak= e it no matter who that person is.=C2=A0 I might be the most vocal and least shy, but I=E2=80=99m confident that I=E2=80=99m not alone in = this opinion.=C2=A0

Damian

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 08:0= 9 Brady, Christopher <C.S.Brady@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
I should just add that I have asked the conference people at Warwick what other (if any) dates in that general time have fully booked accommodation but I don'= t have an answer yet. I think that the 23rd being booked is a random unusual event, but I can't guarantee yet that somehow they aren't being booked out fully six months in advance. I really don't want to back out at this point, but unless people are willing to take the risk that they'd have to stay in a hotel a bus ride awa= y from the university then then it might be better to go back to the LBL plan.

Chris
From: Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) <thomas.l.clune@nasa.gov>
Sent: 09 December 2024 3:06 PM
To: Damian Rouson <rouson@lbl.gov>
Cc: General J3 interest list <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org= >; WG5 List <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Brady, Christopher <C.S.Brady@warwick.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley
=C2=A0

Of course =E2=80=93 j= ust meant that it may not be as simple as naming an alternate.

=C2=A0

  • Tom

=C2=A0

From: Damian Rouson <rouson@lbl.gov>
Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 at 10:00=E2=80=AFAM
To: Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) <thomas.l.clune@nasa.gov>
Cc: General J3 interest list <j3@mailman.j3-for= tran.org>, WG5 List <sc22wg5@open-std.org>, Brady, Christopher <C.S.Brady@warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley

If that's the case, then it's a bug in the rules, but we're discussing meetings that are more than six months away.=C2=A0 I'd be surpri= sed if the requisite training couldn't happen between now and the meeting

=C2=A0

Damian

=C2=A0

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 5:58=E2=80=AFAM Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) <thomas.l.clune@nasa.gov> wrote:

While missing Steve=E2=80=99s presence woul= d be unfortunate in itself, it may not be so simple to arrange a proxy.=C2= =A0=C2=A0 I suspect there is some training that ISO expects the convener to have completed.

=C2=A0=

=C2=B7=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Tom

=C2=A0=

From: J3 <j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org> on behalf of Damian Rouson via J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org&= gt;
Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 at 8:52=E2=80=AFA= M
To: General J3 interest list <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.o= rg>
Cc: Damian Rouson <rouson@lbl.gov>, WG5 List <sc22wg5@open-std.org>= , Brady, Christopher <C.S.Brady@warwick.ac.uk= >
Subject: [BULK] [J3] [SC22WG5.6639] [ukfortran] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA.=C2=A0 Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.=C2=A0 Use the "Report Messag= e" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA=C2=A0SOC. <= /span>

=C2=A0

= But there are still all the other weeks. =C2=A0 I think we need something analogous to a Doodle poll but for weeks instead of the usual hourly time slots. My sense is that most weeks work for most people. We may need a proxy for the convener, but it doesn=E2= =80=99t seem fair to turn down all the other weeks because one person can only make it one week out of so many options. =C2=A0

= =C2=A0

= Damian

= =C2=A0

= =C2=A0

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 03:24 Brady, Christopher via J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org&g= t; wrote:

Hello all. I'm very sorry to have to say that after all of this back and forth it appears that there has been a miscommunication about the availability of the accommodation at Warwick for that week. It looks as though somehow the night of the 23rd was completely booked out in both of the conference centers while I was talking to our conferencing teams and now is unavailable.

=C2=A0

I'm really sorry to have to do this, after having already made so much noise here, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to say that we can't offer to host it at Warwick on the dates that work for people.

=C2=A0

I must say that this is very much not my usual experience with Warwick conferences who are generally excellent, and I can only assume that this was a consequence of my trying to get this idea together very fast.

=C2=A0

Apologies for giving everyone the runaround on this,

=C2=A0

Chris

=C2=A0

From: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org= > on behalf of Steve Lionel <steve@stevelionel.com> Sent: 07 December 2024 5:50 PM
To: WG5 List <sc22wg5@open-std.org>= ;; Brady, Christopher <C.S.Brady@warwick= .ac.uk>
Subject: [ukfortran] [SC22WG5.6636] [J3] [EXTERNAL] 2025 WG5/J3 meeting in Berkeley

=C2=A0

Looking at Google Maps, I don't see any hotels within reasonable walking
distance of the Warwick campus. Have I missed something?

Steve

_______________________________________________
ukfortran mailing list -- ukfortran@accu.org
%(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s


--0000000000009550ae0628d9741d--