(j3.2006) For consideration at 200

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Wed Nov 28 20:19:38 EST 2012


On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:08 -0700, Dan Nagle wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 14:14 , Van Snyder <Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> > So let's have an e-mail discussion and maybe an informal letter ballot
> > on the size, merit, and appropriateness of my proposals, so as not to
> > "waste" J3 time, preferably after the papers are available, instead of
> > ruling apriori that they're out of order before they appear.  Does
> > anybody want to discuss the size and content of the proposals before
> > February, or will the first order of business at 200 be to rule them out
> > of order without looking at them?
> 
> This discussion has already occurred, and the result is that to be considered,
> a proposal must
> 
> be simple to add to the standard, and
> 
> be simple to add to a compiler, and
> 
> address a simple deficiency in an existing feature
> or a simple discrepancy between existing features.
> 
> All other proposals are beyond the scope of the Markham resolutions.
> 
> Period.

I have read the resolutions.  The question that remains is "how do you
know a proposal fits within the guidelines without reading it?"

> Furthermore, the Markham resolutions state that WG5 won't consider
> any more new proposals until f1x is published.
> 
> US-TAG can vote on whether the US should ask WG5 to change the last part,
> to allow a UNITS TS to proceed before f1x is published.

That is exactly what I will be proposing.

> The above is a direct reading of the Markham resolutions and supporting documents
> and I believe it is quite clear.





More information about the J3 mailing list