From Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk Wed Sep 18 14:18:48 1996 Received: from oxmail3.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.9]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29778 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:18:40 +0200 Received: from vax.ox.ac.uk (actually host vax) by oxmail3 with SMTP (PP); Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:17:37 +0100 Received: from 163.1.85.1 by vax.ox.ac.uk (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:17:33 +0100 X-Sender: MELLIS@vax.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:17:35 +0100 To: sc22wg5 From: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) Subject: Ballots on N1192, N1225, N1228 John Reid has suggested that I should have included a YES with comments option in the above informal review ballots. I didn't do so because these are informal ballots to confirm (or otherwise) that these documents are ready for submission to SC22 for registration and approval ballots as PDTRs or CD (as appropriate). Since they will be ballotted then and we shall have to respond to all comments it seems to me that any _minor_ issues can be dealt with during that ballot. One of our problems in the Standards world is that, IMHO, we shelter behind undecided, YES with comments, etc, far too often. In Dresden we had a substantial number of "straw votes" in which Undecided was not an option - only Yes and No were - and I think that this helped us to focus on what was really the issue. Obviously, anyone is always able to append comments with a YES vote, but if you feel that it is important that some editorial change is made before any of these documents are released for balloting at the SC22 level then you should probably vote NO (these are only an advisory, informal, ballots). As a reminder, for those who have not yet expressed an opinion, Resolution D5 requested the project editor (John Reid) to make certain minor changes to the draft Floating Point Exceptions TR, and directed me to initiate (SC22) PDTR balloting as soon as possible thereafter. The ballot on N1225 is simply to confirm that nothing has been missed in the earlier WG5 review and that John has implemented the changes correctly. Similary, Resolution D7 requested the project editor (Malcolm Cohen) to incorporate a paragraph on optimization into the draft Enhanced Data Type Facilities TR, and directed me to initiate (SC22) PDTR balloting as soon as possible thereafter. The ballot on N1228 is simply to confirm that nothing has been missed in the earlier WG5 review and that Malcolm has added the additional text correctly. The situation with N1192 is slightly different, since Resolution D9 simply confirmed that the form of Part 3 was to be "generally that described in WG5-N1192, rather than that described in WG5-N1208". Nevertheless, it seemed appropriate to see if, in the opinion of the WG5 membership, N1192 was ready for SC22 balloting as well. I hope that this clarifies the situation regarding the meaning of YES and NO! Miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Miles Ellis Director: Educational Technology Resources Centre University of Oxford, 37-41 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JF, ENGLAND Telephone: +44 1865 270528 Fax: +44 1865 270527 Email: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk WWW: http://www.etrc.ox.ac.uk/Personal/Miles/Miles_Ellis.html