From LJM@SLACVM.BITNET Wed Nov 20 19:16:50 1991 Received: from danpost.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA01458; Wed, 20 Nov 91 19:16:50 +0100 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by danpost.uni-c.dk (5.65/1.34) id AA22546; Wed, 20 Nov 91 18:17:53 GMT Message-Id: <9111201817.AA22546@danpost.uni-c.dk> Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 3089; Wed, 20 Nov 91 19:16:41 DNT Received: from SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6383; Wed, 20 Nov 91 19:16:40 DNT Received: by SLACVM (Mailer R2.08 R208004) id 1671; Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:15:46 PST Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 09:48 -0800 (PST) From: "Len Moss" To: "SC22/WG5 Mailing List" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.19) informal report of X3J3 meeting 120 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 In-Reply-To: jwagener@trc.amoco.com -- 11/19/91 21:29 >Early in the meeting a motion was passed (17-8) to "have a goal of handling >interpretations within one meeting". The committee worked effectively toward >this goal during the week, but at the end the general feeling seemed to be that >the process was being rushed too much. Therefore the decision was made to >reaffirm at the next meeting all interpretation actions initiated at this >meeting. In addition, though no formal action was taken on this, an apparent >consensus emerged along the lines that only those requests meeting both of the >following conditions could be processed at a single meeting: > > (a) the request appears in the premeeting distribution and the > requestor is invited to the meeting > > (b) a proposed interpretation is distributed (email OK) two weeks > before the meeting > >In all other cases the final role call action on an interpretation should be >delayed to the following meeting. My recollection differs somewhat from Jerry's. Another option that was suggested for expediting the process was to hold a letter ballot _after_ a proposed interpretation has been developed and tentatively approved at a meeting. This would, of course entail mailing the text of the proposed interpretation along with the ballot. I believe our letter ballots normally run for 6 weeks, which should be more than adequate time to review the proposed interpretations. I do not recall hearing any objections to this suggestion, so I assumed that it would probably be tried this time, especially since meeting 121 is so far away. There is also, of course, the requirement to invite the requestor to the meeting at which the interpretation is discussed. In the future we hope to satisfy this requirement by sending out an invitation to the next meeting along with the acknowledgement of the request. However, in cases such as the 28 new proposed interpretations developed at meeting 120, where the invitations have not been issued, it was suggested that we offer the requestor the opportunity of waiving his or her right to attend the meeting in order to expedite the processing. This could probably be coupled with an offer to add them to the f90interp list so they can participate in the discussion of their request in that way. Of course, such a waiver must first be cleared with X3 (or SPARC?). One other point which was implicit in Jerry's summary but which should perhaps be emphasized is that we would like in the future to get draft interpretations developed _before_ the meeting and included in the pre-meeting distribution or else sent around electronically at least two weeks before the meeting. I believe Andrew intends in the future to make subgroup assignments immediately upon receipt of a request and to ask the subgroup head to take responsibility for getting a draft interpretation developed and distributed. -- Leonard J. Moss | My views don't necessarily Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, MS 97 | reflect those of SLAC, Stanford, CA 94309 | Stanford or the DOE