From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed May 7 19:48:57 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h47Hmvi9021955 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 7 May 2003 19:48:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from rap.rap.dk (213.237.47.228.adsl.vbr.worldonline.dk [213.237.47.228]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h47HmpEc021950 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 19:48:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from keld@rap.rap.dk) Received: by rap.rap.dk (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8A3873EC4E; Wed, 7 May 2003 19:49:31 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h47GRhEc021482 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 18:27:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h47GRCq29701 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 17:27:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA20923 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 17:37:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3EB934A5.5050302@rl.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:30:29 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: [Fwd: Draft message to WG5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Dear WG5, I have made Richard's papers into documents N1524-9 and N1531 and Craig's paper N1530. I have send them to Nag. Hopefully,they will be visible tomorrow. The end of the index is now: ................. 1517 Resolutions of the Las Vegas 2003 meeting (Muxworthy) 1518 Minutes of the Las Vegas 2003 meeting (Morgan) 1519 Interpretations for Fortran Part 3, 1 April 2003 (Nagle) 1520 Disposition of comments on the Committee Draft of Fortran 2000 (Reid) 1521 Convener's analysis of the ballot (4 April 2003) (Reid) [1522 Summary of the new features (revised) (Reid)] 1523 Revised Draft of the new Standard (Maine) 1524 Editor's comments on N1523 (03-007) (Maine) 1525 Local/global entities (Maine) 1526 Enum has been emasculated (Maine) 1527 Typos and editorial trivia in 03-007 (Maine) 1528 More typos and editorial trivia in 03-007 (Maine) 1529 ISO_FORTRAN_ENV (Maine) 1530 Keep Environment Procedures as Intrinsics (Dedo) 1531 Storage size (Maine) The documents in square brackets are not yet available. ..................... N1523 gives the revised draft an official status; it points to the J3 version rather than being a copy. This makes me realize that I need to set out how we will do processing from now until sending in the FCD. Here is how I see it. From now on, all changes will be editorial or 'very minor technical'. I do not want to give a precise definition except to say that all the items that we considered explicitly on the first day of the last meeting are excluded. These are the stages: 1. WG5 looks at the document in Dresden and comes up with a set of suggested edits. 2. J3 looks at the suggestions from WG5 and from its members. Richard Maine applies with all edits approved by J3 to the document. 3. WG5 has a postal ballot on the result. A subcommittee will then oversee the incorporation of any non-controversial edits that the ballot exposes. We can decide in Dresden who should be in the subcommittee; I suggest the four that worked on the CD: me, Dan, Richard and Van. 4. If there is any controversy about the way the subcommittee responds to the ballot, futher WG5 discussion by email will be needed; as a last resort, we may need another J3 meeting and another letter ballot, but let's hope not. Since the intention is that no change be greater than 'very minor technical', all editing is delegated to J3, but with WG5 approving the result. If anything more major is necessary, we can do it in Dresden or by letter ballot, but let's hope not. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best wishes, John. P.S. I have started using a different workstation and mailer. This means that papers are easier for me to handle as attachments. And it is also easier for me if you use an earlier paper as a template for the leading part.