(j3.2006) J3/09-187 Results of the J3 interp letter ballot #18

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Tue Apr 14 21:57:11 EDT 2009


Hi Jim,

> Most of my No votes were rejected without an offer of an explanation 
> (rather than saying /interp did not agree with Jim's comment).  I have 
> read and thought on each interp before casting my vote, and I think I 
> need some reasoning to convince me to change my views on them.
You don't need to change your views.  It's a vote.  It's not required to 
be unanimous.
>  I'm not particularly happy with the way the /interp group answers my 
> vote and comments.
You lost the vote.

/interp group reserves the right to take an interp back if a comment, 
even a comment not by an official voter, raises a new technical issue.  
That does not mean that any NO vote requires /interp to take it back.

Just continuing to vote NO without any substantive new technical 
information does not hold up an interp if the rest of the committee 
disagrees with you.  This point was well-established in the distant past 
(F90).

> In addition, there are more problem I found with F03/063 (to forbid 
> procedure pointers in COMMON blocks).
I absolutely stand by the action Stan took on this interp.

You were the only one voting No.  The suggestions from Bill answered 
your technical reason for voting No.  This is responsive to your vote 
and it would seem eminently reasonable on that basis for this to go forward.

Your subsequent suggestion for a further edit looks, on the face of it, 
to be a reasonable one - but it also doesn't look like a showstopper to 
me.  I don't see any grounds for complaint here.

You also voted NO on 0064, and that is still being reviewed - though on 
the face of it, Bill's and my suggestions would appear to resolve your 
technical reason.  I don't see how you can have any problem with that.

You also voted NO on 0071, repeating your last NO vote reason.  That is 
not a new technical reason, and the committee has voted this up in full 
knowledge of this reason.  That's just a lost vote.  Maybe you didn't 
explain the problem you had convincingly enough, or maybe you have 
additional rationale, but this is just the same situation we've been in 
before on many other interps - you can complain that the committee 
didn't agree with you, but that is what happens sometimes.

You also voted NO on 0125.  The alternative you propose was certainly 
debated and rejected at the November meeting, so I'd have to say it's 
not a new issue in my opinion.  And according to my notes at least one 
other vendor preferred "not conforming" to "processor dependent", i.e. 
even further from your current position.  (Without this interp, i.e. 
with the standard as currently written, it is indeed "not conforming".)  
Without wishing at this point in time to debate the merits or demerits 
of your suggestion, I don't see any particular lapse in procedure here.

I understand your disappointment that interp and/or the committee don't 
agree with you on a number of technical issues, but that is not a 
procedural issue.  Sure, we would all *like* to have unanimous agreement 
on interp questions and other technical matters, and if we can reach 
agreement as to how to proceed on each question I for one am all in 
favour.  But sometimes that just does not happen.  It is not always 
reasonable to hold something up indefinitely waiting for agreement.

Perhaps the above counts as "an offer of an explanation"?  Anyway, I 
don't feel that accepting the results of a vote normally requires any 
great detail of explanation.

Cheers,
-- 
.....................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.





More information about the J3 mailing list