(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4014) [ukfortran] Paper 09-238

[Aleksandar Donev]

Hi David,

BTW, my actual message suggested not to delete WG5, rather, to do all 
technical discussions on J3 and keep WG5 for the rare WG5 business. If 
the announcement for Vegas hotels are a big problem we can invent a 
separate list for that (which can have all of the existing J3) that has 
nothing to do with WG5 (so no cross-forwarding or list aliasing or any 
of the current mixing that is causing the issues).

> There has been quite a bit of technical discussion when it concerns
> people outside J3.
Either all technical discussion concerns those people, or none does. Can 
you explain to me what the difference between "WG5" and "J3" technical 
issues are? You are asking me to guess. As far as I can tell, the 
qualifier seems to be: The originator was not on J3 and thus sent it to 
WG5. This is not a clear direction.

> Come on.  The system has been running pretty satisfactorily for 18  
> years.
For your definition of "satisfactorily". I have heard at least 3 people 
complain just this past week!

> in gear but are you really saying it is beyond the wit, or patience, of
> the current set of Fortran standards people to look at the original  
If we want to go in that direction: Is it really beyond the technical 
abilities of the Fortran standards people to set up lists so that they 
function like most lists and do not require manual intervention? At 
*least* one of the standard e-mail client "Reply" or "Reply-all" should 
work, without the recipient having to do manual work.

Best,
Aleks