(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3671) [ukfortran] N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum
Thu Nov 13 01:34:23 EST 2008
Aleksandar Donev wrote:
> I am confused as to whether this should go to WG5 or J3. I thought we
> were not to have long technical arguments on WG5?
Whether the meeting does it in J3 mode or WG5 mode, ultimately it is up
to WG5 to decide on the technical content. Discussing matters for the
joint meeting absolutely ought to be done on the WG5 list.
>> Eh? What about NOTE 12.22?
> Do you get WG5 e-mails? Did you get my response to your message and
> take a look at paper 08-165 and also 08-165r1.txt from meeting 184?
> That paper of mine changed that Note!
No, that paper *proposes* to change the note. It's been accepted by J3
as part of the US position, but the document has not been changed.
The document is with WG5 where it has been undergoing an international
ballot *on that document*. J3 doesn't get to say unilaterally "oh no,
you voted up this other document instead", that's not how it works...
That's why I split the papers into fixes (whether technical or
editorial, these should be uncontroversial unless I made a mistake) and
feature changes. The "fixes" have their cumulative edits in 08-019r1
and hopefully can be voted up in a single block without taking excessive
time. The feature changes proposed by J3 have their cumulative edits in
08-020r1; it's unlikely that this will be votable as a single block but
since all the edits have their provenance recorded it's easy to go back
and find the original paper for rationale etc. (The purpose of these
standing documents was also to make sure we didn't agree on conflicting
edits to the same paragraph...)
.......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3