(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4759) [ukfortran] Provisional result of interpretationsballot 3, N1933

[Malcolm Cohen]

This is very similar what I said except that you are denying that any of it is 
formal and claiming you have the power to decide it all yourself.

I disagree, and disagree very strongly.  WG5 has formally delegated defect 
processing of 1539-1 to J3.  The WG5 vote is formally agreed procedure by J3. 
The J3 procedures are all formal (not voting on letter ballots can lose you your 
membership!).  J3 can overrule the decisions of /INTERP subgroup by formal vote 
(it has not done so at any meeting I have been to, but that is a horse of a 
different colour).

The decision to approve the results of defect processing for SC22 *MUST* be 
formal, not just the whim of the convenor.

You write "Our good record over corrigenda ballots at the SC22 level vouches for 
the success of this strategy.".  Contrariwise, it is almost unheard-of for SC22 
to override the technical decisions of a Working Group, particularly at the 
nitpicky level of a corrigendum.  All countries at SC22 with any interest have 
already been able to participate in voting at WG5 level.  Also, delaying an 
interp for a year or two by vetoing a passed interp in this way is not eactly a 
failure, but it is certainly not a complete sucess.

The convenor should not have a veto over the decisions of the Working Group (you 
say "discretion", I say "veto").

You write "In this case, Nick's strong view suggests to me that "N" is the 
correct outcome.".  Nick and David made their points, and lost the vote.

You write "But I am very happy to hear opinions from other people", and so am I. 
But in the absence of people changing their minds after the vote, their vote 
should be taken as reflecting their opinion since David and Nick made their 
views well known well in advance of the vote deadline.  It makes no sense for 
you to personally bounce the question back down to J3 and for us to pass the 
exact same interp request again all the way up.  If it is like other points of 
disagreement, the next WG5 ballot will give exactly the same result.  Are you 
going to continue to veto the interp then?  This just wastes committee time and 
people's energy.

Since in this case the interp is merely confirming that yes we did write the 
words of the standard and yes they do have their obvious meaning (i.e. there is 
in fact NO EDIT), why are we bothering?

J3 voted for this interp unanimously.  They will certainly not vote for the 
opposite of this interp unanimously!  If you don't trust /INTERP to review 
Nick's and David's objections in good faith, why are we bothering?  I.e. if you 
think /INTERP would just ignore their objections and declare it passed without 
even consideration, why do you think they will act any differently and J3 will 
vote any differently if you veto it?

Furthermore, Nick's expressed views post-vote indicate a likely misunderstanding 
i.e. he does not object to us requiring that relational operators give the right 
answer, he just has (apparently) groundless fears over other issues (that as I 
wrote in my last message, seem to be completely unrelated and the interp answer 
says nothing about).  Now, maybe in between now and October there will be more 
discussion and either
(a) he will become not dissatisfied,
(b) /INTERP after hearing his views at length will decide that even though he is 
dissatisfied, there are no technical grounds for that dissatisfaction,
(c) /INTERP after hearing his views at length will decide that some small 
wording change that does not affect the technical outcome significantly will 
satisfy Nick without losing the support of everyone else, or
(d) /INTERP after hearing his views at length will decide that there is a 
technical issue that needs to be voted on by the full J3 committee.
(NB: "hearing his views at length" = reading yesterday's email and any further 
in between now and October, I don't mean we will interrogate him!)

This is precisely what "C" means, and gives the best possibility of a good 
outcome viz getting this interp finished in a timely fashion.  As someone else 
says occasionally, "late answers are wrong answers".  Unnecessary delays and 
procedural fiddle-faddling do not encourage participation and good work.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Reid
Date: ?? 24?9?4? 18:50
To: WG5
Cc: Malcolm Cohen
Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4758) [ukfortran] Provisional result of 
interpretationsballot 3, N1933



Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> On Sep 4 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that F03/0065 ballot result should be "C", since it is 7 Y and
>>> 2 N.
>>
>>From that, I assume that there are no formal rules.
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> It passed the vote 7-2.  However, the formal rules allow for /INTERP subgroup 
> to
> withdraw an interp that would have passed the vote if the negative votes or
> positive comments raise a new technical issue that in their view requires
> further consideration.
>
> Thus normally whenever there is any negative vote or adverse technical 
> comment,
> the provisional result is declared to be "C"; that is conditionally passes
> subject to /INTERP subgroup review of the comments.

No. This is an informal WG5 ballot and the Convener has discretion re
the result. A small number of no votes, perhaps only one, can raise a
point that needs to be considered. Stan acts in a similar way for J3
letter ballots on interps. Our aim throughout is caution - not to accept
an interp. as finished until we are as certain as possible that the
answer has full consensus. Our good record over corrigenda ballots at
the SC22 level vouches for the success of this strategy.

In this case, Nick's strong view suggests to me that "N" is the correct
outcome. But I am very happy to hear opinions from other people.

Cheers,

John.





_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
________________________________________________________________________

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