SC22/WG21/N1171
J16/98-0028
20 October, 1998
Sean A Corfield
sean@ocsltd.com

Plum called the meeting to order at 18:00PST, 6 October, 1998.

Plum explained that there were three official hosts: Silicon Graphics Inc, Plum Hall Inc and Perennial Inc. He also noted that a lot of the local meeting arrangements had been made by Tom MacDonald of Cray Inc and that Simonsen (Denmark) had providing Internet access and networking courtesy of the Danish UNIX Users Group.

In attendance were:

Plum was acclaimed.

Corfield acted as secretary.

Plum nominated English. Approved by acclamation.

The agenda, N1158 = 98-0015, was adopted by acclamation.

Plum noted that a drafting committee might be needed to draft any New Project proposals that might be agreed during the week. Simonsen volunteered and the Japanese delegation offered to assist him. Kühl also volunteered.

Corfield said he had heard no objections to the minutes of the previous meeting. Plum asked if there were any and no one objected. The minutes, N1154 = 98-0011, were approved by acclamation.

There were no outstanding action items.

Simonsen brought forward a paper on Internationalisation issues and would obtain document numbers from Miller later.

All deferred until joint session.

Plum said we should celebrate the FDIS ballot result. Applause. The ISO C++ Standard document is designated 14882 ("14 8 82"). Simonsen noted that a PDF version is available for download from ANSI’s web site. Plum noted that ANSI's price of $18 for the PDF download is the lowest ever for a standard and that we should encourage people to buy it (if ANSI is their usual Standards Body).

Plum asked each delegate to take an action to spread the news about the downloaded version of the Standard:

• Plum said he would notify his test suite users.
• Glassborow said he would publicize it in various magazine columns that he writes.
• Josuttis said he would publicize it on German newsgroups and email lists, as well as his forthcoming book.
• Kühl said he would notify his company’s customers.
• Corfield had already publicized it on various technical email lists.
• Kristoffersen said he would publicize it in the Danish press and within various user groups.
• The Japanese delegation said they would publicize it in various places including Dr Dobbs Japanese edition and various C++ web pages. They would also encourage translation of the Standard to Japanese and noted that Koshida is already working on this.
• Koenig said he would publicize it in various newsgroups, on his personal home page, at user group talks, and in his magazine columns.
• Dawes said he would notify his customers and publicize it on the Visual C++ newsgroups as well as the Boost web site (under development).
• O'Riordan expressed concern that the Irish Standards Body might object to his publicizing an ANSI Standard for purchase.
• Andersson said he could publicize it in Swedish magazines and within Ericsson.

Koenig suggested putting it on a CD and selling it via Amazon for example. This raises the issue of how non-US standards bodies can make money out of standards. Glassborow said we must clamp down on anyone trying to pirate the document or give it away. Fukutomi asked whether there were differences between the ANSI PDF version and the printed ISO version. Koenig said a few typographical and formatting errors were corrected. Glassborow noted the ANSI PDF version has cut & paste disabled. No one knew why, but Glassborow felt it was a bad idea. Kristoffersen asked if there is a 'sample' press release. Plum asked for a volunteer to draft such a release. Josuttis suggested we base it on the announcement made in Morristown. Plum agreed to provide this.

Plum said we will discuss this in full committee but asked if anyone had any particular comments. So far we have two DRs and lots of known issues. Koenig emphasized that we must put a procedure in place as soon as possible, hence he raised the two DRs. The Nice meeting agreed procedures for handling DRs which we believe are within SC22 guidelines. Dawes explained that we have worked on producing issues lists in HTML to make the process easier. O'Riordan felt the first line of handling should be through the NBs' Technical Experts. Glassborow wanted caution because Technical Experts are fallible: some are clearly defects where the Standard says nothing, some are questions for which the answer "a close and careful reading of the Standard provides the answer" is appropriate, others are interpretation requests. Glassborow wanted to use the web to publicize corrections & clarifications. Koenig said we are only allowed to make two "corrections" (via Technical Corrigenda) but he thinks we can announce intention to include items in such published corrections.

Plum said that, at the SC22 plenary in August, he & Simonsen reviewed the proposal against previous NP proposals and then Kehoe also reviewed it. Plum said "performance" is not just to do with speed, it also covers resource usage etc. O'Riordan said embedded / real-time market is more interested in repeatability than outright performance. Plum feels many of the embedded people who used C are now looking to C++ since C's revision is not focusing on that area. WG21 is therefore the "right place" for this discussion. Japan has already done two years’ work on this subject. Kühl asked whether the work on performance issues would be co-located with the scheduled J16 meetings. Plum said yes.

Plum proposed that the Performance WG should meet with both Core and Library WGs to discuss issues. Dawes said the LWG has a lot of interest and some overlap with PWG and feels that joint sessions will be productive. O'Riordan commented on metrics prepared by RTS group about Cfront.

Simonsen said WG20 - Internationalization - is making a C++ binding and wants to talk to the group. Plum said this is purely a library issue. Dawes & Plum agreed to produce an agenda for the LWG to include PWG and WG20 issues. O'Riordan asked about the bindings as he is very interested - Plum wanted to table this discussion. Dawes suggested LWG discuss the issue first.

Plum agreed to chair the next meeting which will be in Dublin, Ireland, 12-16 April, 1999.

Currently, the only scheduled future meeting is in Kona, Hawaii, 20-26 October 1999. Plum said this would be a five day meeting, co-located with WG14, and covers Wed-Fri (20^th-22^nd) & Mon-Tue (25^th-26^th). Plum suggested an East Coast meeting in April 2000. Koenig suggested Xerox may wish to host since their meeting was cancelled. Glassborow expressed concern about co-located meetings clashing with the convention we have previously adopted of "1 in 3" meetings outside US.

Plum moved to adjourn at 19:05PST, 6 October, 1998.

Clamage opened the meeting at 9:06PST on Wednesday 7 October 1998.

Clamage explained voting procedures. Miller circulated the membership list and J16 attendance list and explained the document numbering . Plum explained the room allocation: primary groups are Core, Library and Performance. WG20 will present to LWG before lunch, PWG & LWG will meet after lunch then PWG & CWG will meet. Tomorrow all three meet separately. Breakout rooms are 12-15 people. LWG expected to be 16, CWG 20, PWG 10. Santa Cruz CWG, Bayview LWG, Seaview PWG.

Plum explained copying & printing facilities - Kinko's can print & copy on account for SGI. Simonsen explained Internet facility - 10baseT hub with DKUUG server downstairs and full Internet access. Simonsen has permission from ISO to provide PDF of 14882 for all committee members present, for standardization use only - not for distribution.

Reception hosted by Addison-Wesley on Wednesday night at 6pm.

Document number N1159 = 98-0016. Agenda approved by acclamation.

None.

Motion by Miller/Sutter to approve N1154 = 98-0011 as the minutes of the previous meeting.

Plum summarized the WG21 meeting. He said 7 countries were represented. He reiterated the logistics of the subgroups. Plum then clarified an issue with document numbering: ISO document numbers must not have ‘Rn’ revision numbers - use ‘Dn’ for draft then a number for distribution. Revisions get a new number. Miller explained what ‘R’ numbers were originally for and that it was OK to use the ‘R’ suffix numbers for J16 documents (so NxxxxDn / xx-xxxx was OK for drafts and Nxxxx / xx-xxxxRn for the mailing version).

Plum said we were in favor of the electronic distribution of the PDF by ANSI and would try to encourage as many people as possible, for whom ANSI was their standards body, to purchase it so the experiment is a success. The printed standard is $175, the PDF is $18. Plum asked everyone to publicize the availability of the PDF from http://www.ansi.org - this is the lowest price ever for an electronic standard. Plum also said we should discourage anyone from pirating the electronic copy. Glassborow suggested that any pirated copies should be reported to host webmasters, ISPs etc. Simonsen reminded Plum that we should issue a press release. Plum will post a draft to c++std-admin for each NB to adjust for their own use. Plum was unsure of the status of translations. Koenig asked about authorization for translations. Simonsen explained the ISO standpoint on this.

The WG20 report was deferred to the LWG meeting. Simonsen reported that two TRs have been finalized: framework for internationalization and document 10176 - guidelines for design of programming languages – that relates to the [extendedid] Appendix of the C++ Standard which is now out of date. The new C draft standard is aligned with 10176. Suggested action to align the [extendedid] Appendix of 14882 with the new WG20 TR and the ISO C CD. The WG20 sorting standard is at CD level. Enhanced locales, document 14652, features an enhanced Posix syntax for character sets, Simonsen is editor. He asked for input from the LWG. There is a meeting in two weeks to progress both CDs. An API standard is to be discussed with the LWG for C++ binding. An ISO standard for locales features Posix and C as well as character set definition. See the DKUUG web site http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg20 (Simonsen noted there is a corresponding wg21 area). Simonsen provided the username and password for access to the password-protected area. Simonsen said anyone can join the WG20 email list by contacting him.

The WG14 report was deferred because Benito is currently in a WG14 meeting.

Koenig asked for clarification on the purpose of the WG sessions. Plum said CWG & LWG have lists of issues to work on, mainly to deal with reported defects, questions and comments in a technical manner. Koenig said he wanted an explanation of timescales and what will happen to the decisions of WGs. Clamage explained that the admin issues will be dealt with later.

The committee recessed at 9:50PST on Wednesday, 7 October, 1998.

Clamage reconvened the meeting at 13:40PST on Thursday, 8 October, 1998.

Gibbons summarized the WG’s progress. He said 48 issues had been covered, most were not defects or were very minor. A couple of large items have recommended solutions:

• Exception specifications should be part of the type system, i.e., statically checked. Myers noted that this might have a large impact on the library. Gibbons said the current situation is untenable as some parts of the Standard allow programs to compile but do the wrong thing. Ball said the previous attempt to provide type-like checking didn't work. Gibbons categorized that as a "shadow type system". Myers’ concern centers around the library specification allowing implementers to choose whether or not to provide exception specifications - this proposal would potentially make several current implementations non-conforming. Further discussion is clearly needed - papers will appear in future mailings. Spicer noted that CWG voted all in favor with a few abstentions.
• Default initialization based on Koenig's paper in the pre-meeting mailing. CWG almost unanimously in favor of Koenig's recommendation. Koenig will attempt to provide revised wording. Koenig was keen to provide early guidance to users and implementers.

Template issues will be looked at by Core WG this afternoon. Gibbons said there were several ‘extern "C"’ issues where the Standard is vague. He said Core has a proposal to clarify behavior that contains a few items that might be controversial. He said calling ‘exit()’ within a signal handler was a problem because ‘exit()’ invokes static destructors which are library functions, hence it violates the rules in the Standard. Core want to make it undefined (as WG14 have done). WG14 have also said calling ‘atexit()’ within exit processing is undefined - we should adopt this. Myers wanted clarification about static objects constructed during exit processing. Gibbons said this should be undefined too.

Dawes summarized the WG's progress. The WG have covered 70 issues so far out of 93. Most of these are minor issues that the WG closed, most at the level of typos.

Dawes said there is a paper on "namespaces for library extensions", N1166 = 98-0023 by Myers. This is preliminary work but represents what the LWG would like to progress into a TR. Wording to propose a TR should be available in Dublin. Interested parties should read this paper and contribute feedback to Myers. Myers wanted more information on what’s involved in making a TR proposal. Plum to discuss later on.

Dawes then discussed the WG20 Internationalization API proposal, N1168 = 98-0025. The sense of the LWG was to use c++std-intl to build consensus and formulate a possible C++ binding. Several possible approaches were briefly discussed in the WG but there was no agreement on the actual direction.

Kehoe summarized the WG's progress. They have draft a proposal for a New Project. They have volunteers to work on each section of the proposed report. Cygnus will host a web site for PWG containing various large documents. There are now three NP proposal documents that we need to decide on the approach:

• a combined performance and low-level programming TR
• a performance TR
• a low-level programming TR

The first one combines the other two. Someone was concerned that these lumped too many issues together. Plum tried to explain why a single TR covering all performance and limited-resource issues was being proposed. Plum said the group felt it would be more productive to work on a single TR. Simonsen said there are three types of TRs which vary in the strength of their recommendation and the NP should include this information. Plauger said the TR should be "guidance". Simonsen felt the low-level programming TR probably should be "normative".

Plum said the majority of PWG wanted to split out the low-level programming TR. Myers asked for clarification that each TR needed a NP. Plum said yes. Plum said there were four NBs in support of this work with the fifth being confirmed just prior to the Plenary in August. A NP needs five NBs supporting to progress it. At the Plenary, two more NBs expressed support based on the addition of the low-level programming issue. Plum is concerned that we might lose NB support if we propose to split the TR. Plum wants to survey the NBs present (USA, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Denmark, Canada, Ireland and Sweden, although it was noted that Sweden were withdrawing from SC22 as 'P' members). Quite a bit of discussion about how to progress. Plauger spoke in favor of separate TRs from a technical point of view and saw no evidence of reducing consensus. Plum reiterated that the issue was initial support from NBs, not consensus. At the Plenary, support clearly increased when the low-level programming issues were added to the single TR. Plum is concerned that splitting the TR might reduce the NB support for either TR below the necessary level of five. O'Riordan spoke in favor of keeping the two issues in one TR. Josuttis had concerns about providing manpower to work on a spread of projects. Simonsen clarified that NBs can support the project via correspondence rather than needing to be physically present at meetings.

Plum noted that nothing on the PWG agenda would involve Core extensions, only Library extensions. Josuttis asked whether we could have a WG21 meeting at some point this week to discuss this. Plum agreed to defer further discussion until Friday.

Plum explained the proposed process as detailed in the minutes of the Nice meeting (March '98), N1154 = 98-0011.

• The public can submit issues via comp.std.c++ or the UK panel. The moderators of comp.std.c++ or members of the UK panel can reject issues or forward them to the issue list maintainers.
• CWG and LWG can also bring forward issues directly to the list maintainers.

Then CWG and LWG work on the issues lists. Potential DRs are brought to the full committee (J16). The project editor takes the result of the J16 decision and produces the official DR list. The DR list goes forward to the Convener.

Also, NBs can create DRs that go directly to the Convener.

The Convener forwards DRs periodically to SC22. DRs are then worked on by the full committee. The results are then voted on (at the following meeting) and published. Dawes said LWG wanted to expose the issues list to the public much earlier in the process. Glassborow also spoke in favor of making the issues list very public.

Miller commented on the voting process: our intent is to block vote groups of issues, hence the one meeting delay. This also has a bearing on when we can make proposed resolutions available to the public.

Dawes said the LWG list needs updating to incorporate all the agreed resolutions at this meeting. Gibbons confirmed that CWG was in the same position. Plum emphasized that we will not be taking votes at this meeting on tentative DR resolutions. Koenig said we actually need to vote on whether we will make versions of the issues list public (on the web site). Some people think this was agreed in Nice. Dawes proposed to put the LWG issue list on the password-protected web site for review and if no objections were raised it would move to the public web site after some editing to make the status of each issue very clear. Koenig was concerned about the public (including compiler vendors) getting the wrong message from these lists. Dawes emphasized that issues that had not been agreed by full committee would be clearly marked as such. Someone asked who would make these sorts of decisions. Plum asked the WG chairs to take responsibility for this. Gibbons and Dawes agreed. Tana Plauger asked how the public should comment on published issues. The sense of the committee was that each document should have an email address attached. Simonsen asked that DRs should be public as soon as possible even when we have no resolution.

The committee recessed at 15:25PST.

Core, Library and Performance WGs worked from Wednesday morning through Thursday lunchtime and Thursday afternoon onwards.

Clamage reconvened the meeting at 8:44PST on Friday 9 October 1998. Clamage said the WG reports indicate that a lot of useful work was done at this meeting. We also have the basis of the DR process agreed. There will be a brief US Tag meeting immediately after this J16 meeting closes. Following that, WG21 will meet in Seaview downstairs.

There were no formal motions, not even to approve the WP! Laughter. Saks wanted to know if we were voting on the NP proposals. Plum said Nelson needs a sense of J16 in order to cast a vote in the WG21 meeting later. Plauger objected that Nelson would be given authority without a formal vote. Plum said the issue of NPs is one of consensus. Plauger said he was more concerned with process than outcome. Saks said normally we would have had a J16 straw vote during General Session (Thursday) followed by a WG21 straw vote. Then today we would have a formal motion on which to conduct formal J16 and WG21 votes. More discussion about process. Plum felt we had formal motions - the NP proposals. Corfield objected that we had not yet agreed which combination of NP proposals should go forward. Plum affirmed that he intended to act on whatever consensus was reached in WG21. Plauger said this procedure is at variance with our past practice. Glassborow said he did not have enough guidance from his NB (UK) to vote. Koenig asked that we try to take a formal approach.

Clamage declared that we were in committee of the whole so we could conduct straw votes.

Kehoe expressed the opinion that we can obtain consensus over the next few weeks and then go with a letter ballot. Plum felt that J16 had agreed in principle to support the result of either proposal (one combined NP or two separate NPs). It was clarified that neither of these two options was actually represented by a paper in the pre-meeting mailing. Josuttis asked why, since we already have a PWG, we have to have a formal vote now, rather than in six months. Plum again said this is a WG21 issue, not a formal J16 issue. Tana Plauger expressed concern that the PWG recommended almost unanimously to put forward two NPs but we were still talking about deciding between one and two NPs. Josuttis reiterated his question. Nelson felt it was important to get a sense of J16 today but didn't know whether we were under pressure to take a formal vote on what to submit to SC22. Saks said he didn't want to turn up at the next meeting without a clear mandate of what we're supposed to be working on. Plum feels we need to try to push forward with the ISO process. Myers suggested we have a straw vote anyway. Glassborow felt that he had a mandate from the UK in favor of one NP but was concerned that PWG seemed in favor of two NPs instead. Sutter said he also has a NB position (Canada) based on previous discussion in favor of one NP. Kristoffersen said his understanding was that PWG were happy to work on both issues so it didn't seem to matter whether we had one NP or two NPs. He felt the resolution at SC22's Plenary indicated support for both pieces of work and SC22 wouldn't mind whether we presented one NP or two. He said, as a user, he would prefer two focused TRs rather than one combined TR.

Corfield said the only real concern is a procedural one: we know we have enough NB support for one NP but we don't know for sure whether we will get enough NB support for the portable I/O NP if we split it off on its own. It was generally felt that we expect support for the main NP regardless of whether it contains portable I/O or not. Simonsen agreed and suggested our fastest and most secure way forward was to submit one NP. Saks felt the PWG did not actually show consensus on exactly what to push forward - only that they felt the portable I/O should be split out. Saks wanted a sense of the committee today in preparation for a letter ballot. Plum said the letter ballot would occur at SC22 level. Miller asked if there was strong opposition to submitting one NP and having the option to split it later. Simonsen felt we should have a WG21 straw vote. Clamage wanted to hear discussion on the technical issue of splitting the NP. Plum asked whether anyone objected to the content of the NP(s) regardless of whether it's in one or two pieces. Dawes felt the procedure had not been followed and couldn't vote in favor of either at the moment. Glassborow said we already have a sense from Nice that we are in favor of doing work on performance issues but by splitting the work, we may find less support for the portable I/O. Plum felt that would be in opposition to the sense he got from the Plenary. Austern feels we have not had enough time to study the portable I/O work and cannot vote on it.

Corfield spoke out strongly against trying to split the work because we have no idea whether we'd get the support for the portable I/O work whereas almost everyone actually wants to do the work. He said it was purely a political decision - attempting to split the work was dangerous and might prevent us from working on the portable I/O stuff. Simonsen agreed. Koenig voiced support for Simonsen’s and Corfield’s position: we go forward with one NP and think about splitting it later. Sutter agreed and said we can deal with organizational issues of the document later. Vandevoorde asked whether there were objections to working on portable I/O. Kehoe said PWG seemed happy to work on both pieces of work. Clamage asked for a J16 (voting members) straw vote:

J16 straw vote indicating preference for a single combined NP or two separate NPs:

J16 straw vote indicating support for either approach:

Straw votes indicating support for each separate NP:

Nelson asked for a show of hands indication of the level of participation:

• J16 members likely to participate in performance NP work: 9.
• J16 members likely to participate in portable I/O work: 6.

Plum hoped Plauger's concerns were answered. Plauger said he did not want this discussion at all, he just wanted to point out that we have a change of procedure. Simonsen said this is a J16 only vote and we should have a joint meeting with WG21. He feels that if J16 doesn't have a strong opinion on this issue, it's in the same position as other NBs. Glassborow asked for a WG21 vote. Plum said the vote he would take would now be on a single combined NP. Plum explained the official position of ISO regarding meetings: for formal ISO votes, only accredited NB reps can be present. Josuttis said that in light of the extended debate, he now feels uncomfortable voting on the issue at all. Corfield expressed sympathy with that.

Convener proposes to put forward a single combined NP:

Two separate NPs:

Saks asked about the letter ballot. Plum explained it would be an SC22 only letter ballot. A few people said there should be a US Tag letter ballot.

Clamage declared the committee to be back in General Session.

One action item omitted from yesterday: a request from WG14 to identify those CWG/LWG issues that might impact WG14. Dawes felt that part of the list maintenance should probably include this anyway. Simonsen volunteered to help coordinate this.

Miller asked what the status of the DR list was. Koenig said we have no confirmed DRs yet to be placed in a report. Plauger clarified that the Project Editor has the authority to declare a Defect Report but the Convener officially maintains the list.

[Note: this topic was actually covered in General Session on Wednesday, due to O’Riordan’s commitments on Friday, but is listed here for consistency with the agenda.]

O'Riordan discussed the next meeting in Dublin. More details will be in the post-meeting mailing. Looks like about 50 attendees from Santa Cruz will be in Dublin and probably a larger European contingent. The meeting will be 12-16 April '99.

Miller asked that people email him copies of any documents they created here. Deadlines are 23 October 1998 for post-Santa Cruz and 23 February 1999 for pre-Ireland mailings.

Plum Hall is hosting the October 1999 meeting in Kona, Hawaii. Clamage asked people to think about hosting future meetings. Simonsen is looking into hosting a meeting in Denmark in 2000.

Plauger moved that we thank our hosts. Applause. Plum noted that Perennial should be recognized for the networking supplied.

Motion by Glassborow/Charney to adjourn:

Plum reconvened WG21 at 10:41PST Friday 9 October 1998.

Plum asked that we repeat the introductions since we have different delegates present than for the 6 October, 1998 session.

Plum explained that the purpose of this meeting was to approve forwarding the NP proposal. Kristoffersen feels it doesn't matter whether we have one or two NPs but it seems reasonable to move forward with one combined NP and later split it if necessary. Simonsen feels we have enough time to decide by Dublin whether to split and that would be early enough for the SC22 Plenary in Berlin in Summer 1999 should we deem it necessary. Glassborow said our focus should be to get the work done and leave the issue of splitting the work until later. Plum said we seem to have the support for the combined work even if there is not as much specific support for the portable I/O section of it. Plum feels the single NP will probably work better from SC22's point of view regarding work on programming languages. Kristoffersen said the sense of SC22 was in favor of embedded systems work. He feels we have expanded that to include more general performance issues. That still has support from SC22. Plum explained what happened in the PWG sessions: we are interested in not only embedded systems but other specific single-purpose systems and/or real-time systems. Furthermore, performance does not include floating point issues. This will be explained in the preamble that Plum and Hayashida will write.

Plum said we understand that delegates votes here do not guarantee what the actual SC22 vote will be. Plum confirmed that we can always split a TR in the future if we need to and that there was no guarantee that the resulting TR would look similar to what is currently on the table in terms of the technical details.

Plum called for a formal vote to support forwarding a single combined performance NP:

The NBs in favor were Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Japan, UK, US.

Plum requested that we try to draw new people to the C++ standards process whose background is embedded / real-time etc.

Simonsen said he had spoken to ANSI about the $18 download and ANSI felt that we should not advertise it outside the US. Plum said we should therefore beware of promoting the ANSI download. Glassborow suggested we approach our own National Bodies to attempt to get them to change their policy on distribution.

Simonsen would like WG21 to review two FCDs from WG20. We should be prepared to discuss this in Dublin. One is on sorting, the other is on locale issues.

Glassborow feels the co-location of WG14 & WG21 has been very beneficial and wanted to extend thanks to WG14 for having us around. He also said that we should consider co-location for the year 2000 (we already have a co-located meeting in Hawaii in 1999). WG14 may be changing their meeting schedule (to only two meetings a year) which may make co-location more difficult but we should ask for the October 2000 meeting to be co-located. Benito joined the meeting at this point and said WG14 have no location decided for this yet. Simonsen said that Denmark might be able to host a meeting but did not have the facilities to support the numbers associated with a co-located meeting. Glassborow felt that the co-located meetings would benefit from being in the US. Simonsen said he would discuss the possibility of Denmark hosting the April 2000 meeting. So far Denmark is the only volunteer for hosting the April 2000. It was emphasized that this is purely tentative and is not a commitment from Simonsen.

Plum proposed that we thank WG14 for their excellent liaison and responsiveness. Motion accepted by acclamation.

Benito said that the co-located meeting was also useful for WG14 but their schedule for Hawaii (October 1999) was not yet fixed.

Glassborow asked if there was any more business and if not, could we adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

Plum adjourned the meeting at 11:18PST, 9 October, 1998.