From Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk Fri Oct 11 12:21:42 1996 Received: from ratatosk.DK.net (root@ratatosk.DK.net [193.88.44.22]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA15663 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:21:41 +0100 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk (oxmail4.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.33]) by ratatosk.DK.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16344 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:21:29 +0200 Received: from vax.ox.ac.uk by oxmail4 with SMTP (PP); Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:19:25 +0100 Received: from 163.1.85.1 by vax.ox.ac.uk (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:18:53 +0100 X-Sender: MELLIS@vax.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:19:32 +0100 To: sc22wg5 From: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) Subject: Informal ballot on N1192 (Conditional Compilation) The final count in the ballot on N1192 was as follows: Individual: 4 Yes 14 No Country: 3 Yes 1 No CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE FORWARDED TO THE SC22 SECRETARIAT FOR CD REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL BALLOTS AS IT STANDS. The Yes votes were from Epstein, Gorelik, Martin, Weber Sweden, Germany, Japan The No votes were from *Adams, *Bierman, Cohen, Ellis, Hendrickson, Maine, Meissner, Morgan, Muxworthy, *North, Reid, *Wagener, Whitlock, Zongaro *US The Yes votes from Epstein and Japan were accompanied by editorial comments. Most of the comments from those voting No point out that there are significant editorial changes required to get the document into the correct form, and these are being passed to the Editor (David Epstein), together with the Japanese comments (I assume that he has his own ;-). Many of them also comment that there has been insufficient technical review of the document. However those No votes from names preceded by an asterisk in the above list were on procedural, not technical, grounds. The US country vote stated that "the US believes that the alternatives did not receive equal consideration in Dresden (e.g., comparable-style papers were not in the premeeting; papers on both approaches were not available during much of the discussion on this topic), and that due process therefore requires further consideration of the alternatives." The four US members of WG5 marked with an asterisk either indicated that their personal vote was in support of this US position or made comments to similar effect (i.e. not on the content of the draft but on whether this was the correct approach). Although any individual and any country has the right to vote in any way that they please, I should, perhaps, make two points: 1. Both approaches were presented at some length in Dresden; if one of them was less well documented in the pre-meeting distribution that is unfortunate, but there was ample time to provide papers since it had been decided in San Diego last November that this issue would be resolved in Dresden. Following the presentations a straw vote (with no undecided votes allowed) showed 14 in favour of the "Fortran-like" approach and 6 in favour of the "fpp" approach. 2. The Resolution to adopt the "Fortran-like" approach rather than an "fpp" approach was approved unanimously, apart from one negative individual vote and two individual abstentions. This decision was in line with decisions taken in both Tokyo and San Diego last year, and it does seem that the majority view (of both countries and individuals) is firmly of the opinion that the approach described in N1192 is the one required. We have discussed these two options at the last three WG5 meetings, therefore, and by email, etc, in between, and have consistently favoured the N1192 approach. Nevertheless, the US appears to have changed its mind since Dresden, and I should take account of that change in the hope that we can still reach a consensus. What I propose to do, therefore, is as follows: 1. All members of WG5 should review N1192 for technical errors and send their comments to David Epstein via the CoCo email list as soon as possible, and certainly by November 30th. Hopefully discussions on this list will help to further refine any problem areas identified. 2. The Editor (David Epstein) will revise N1192 to take account of the comments received during the ballot, and any others that he may receive subsequently, and will produce a revised version by the end of 1996 at the latest. Thi document will be placed on the WG5 server and will be on the agenda for the Las Vegas meeting in February. As things stand at present, the approach used in N1192 is the one approved by WG5, and in Las Vegas we will spend some time (hopefully) sorting out any remaining technical issues before voting on whether to forward the revised document to SC22 - or deciding that it still needs further technical and/or editorial work. 3. If the proponents of an alternative approach wish to have one last attempt to change the collective mind of WG5 then they should produce an alternative draft standard, IN A FORM READY FOR SUBMISSION TO THE SC22 SECRETARIAT FOR BALLOTING, by the end of 1996 at the latest. (I will be happy to advise on the implications of this) Although David Epstein is the approved Editor for this project, it does not seem reasonable to ask him to produce such an additional document, as WG5 has already, overwhelmingly, approved the direction taken in the current draft. Ideally any discussions about the content of this document should also be conducted via the CoCo email list so that they can also receive as thorough a technical pre-review as possible. If such a document does reach me by 31st December (in PostScript and, if possible/relevant, ASCII) then this will also be placed on the WG5 server and will be on the agenda for Las Vegas. In that event, the meeting will have to decide which of the two alternative documents to forward to SC22 for balloting, or, if neither is deemed to be ready, which is to be the base document for the draft CD. THIS WILL BE THE FINAL VOTE ON THE DIRECTION; WE CANNOT KEEP REVISITING AN ISSUE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. 4. If such an alternative draft CD does appear then I shall invite those unable to attend the Las Vegas meeting (both individuals and countries) to let me have their votes on forwarding one or other of the drafts for CD balloting. I shall not divulge these votes unless and until a vote is required during the Las Vegas meeting, but in that event they will carry equal weight with those of individuals and countries who are there. This may seem an over-complex procedure, but it is, I believe, the only way to finally resolve this issue (for better or for worse). 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