(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3606) [ukfortran] Ballot processing and SC22 meeting

[John Reid]

WG5,

I would like to express support for Malcolm's message. Yes, WG5 needs to vote up 
all changes made to the draft. And, yes, specially serious attention needs to be 
paid to any technical changes proposed.

My one quibble is that I was not talking about 08-019r1 and 08-020r1. For WG5 to 
discuss the US comments, I think it needs to look at the J3 papers referenced in 
N1741, since these explain the reasons for the proposed changes.

John.



Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> 
> John Reid wrote:
> 
>>I do not expect WG5 to discuss the papers referenced in the first two 
>>sections of N1741, Editorial repairs and Technical repairs, since this 
>>level of detail is normally delegated to J3.
> 
> I'd like to disagree with this assertion.  In the past WG5 has taken its 
> lead from J3 at this level, but the draft CD is WG5's document and it is 
> WG5's responsibility to take ownership of any changes.  For example, 
> during F2003 development we voted up minor corrections as a block; I 
> believe these were absent any so-called "technical corrections" though 
> some typos might have been fixed that had some trivial technical effect.
> 
> In particular, the great majority of "technical fixes" are emphatically 
> *NOT* typo fixes, but actual technical CHANGES in some cases from second 
> thoughts about how some things were supposed to work and in other cases 
> actual changes in previously-agreed technical content.
> 
> Even for the so-called editorial changes, despite the best efforts and 
> intentions there could be defective edits or edits with technical 
> effect; in order to encourage people to have a look at what they are 
> agreeing to I'd like to see that paper block-voted.  If indeed we got it 
> right (or people don't care) it will take 5 minutes at most.  If we got 
> it wrong it will result in the loss of a lot more than 5 minutes!
> 
> The "technical changes" paper needs *SERIOUS* attention by WG5 in my 
> opinion.  These are not "oh look a typo".  Some of them are "oops we 
> forgot about this and that interaction" ... and the chosen solution 
> needs to be agreed!  Others of them are "we changed our mind on this 
> one" - in some cases deleting some part of a feature ... and such change 
> of content certainly needs to be agreed.  There is also the cumulative 
> effect of multiple minor technical changes on a feature; individually 
> these might well be close to insignificant but as a whole they can 
> certainly change the whole character (and thus desirability) of a 
> feature.  It's possible that we did such a good job on this paper that 
> WG5 will find nothing wrong and just vote the whole thing up as a block 
> (though I'd be a little surprised if we got all of these right, to be 
> honest); and if there is any technical change there that does not have 
> WG5 agreement then yes it will take longer but it needs to take longer 
> and achieve agreement if not consensus.
> 
> I will note that I have not produced the two documents under discussion 
> here, viz 08-019r1 and 08-020r1.  Sorry about that; I have started, but 
> I am under some pressure on the day job as well so these are likely to 
> take another couple of weeks.  If they are as trivial and 
> uncontroversial as John implies that won't be a problem; to the extent 
> that they are not it underscores the need to WG5 to agree to them.
> 
> ...
> 
>>I think we may need to make changes in the structure of the early part 
>>of our draft standard.
> 
> Sure.  We have already made substantial progress towards making our 
> standard fit the guidelines, so I am not too worried about this one.  
> The structural change you suggest is minor compared to the major one of 
> actually adhering to ISO guidelines re terms we define!  (And we are 
> still not quite finished doing that, though it is much better than before.)
> 
> Cheers,