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

Wed Sep 5 06:15:58 EDT 2012

Malcolm,

Under the ISO rules, conveners have an over-riding duty to seek 
consensus and are given discretion over how to achieve this. The formal 
part comes when a corrigendum and its accompanying defect report (I send 
the collection of interps as the defect report) is voted at the SC22 
level. My view is that WG5 has not reached consensus yet on F03/0065.

There were several interps in last year's ballots that had only one or 
two individual no votes, but were given (by me) a no result. There were 
no objections to these. This time, as usual, I have given everyone a 
chance to comment on my provisional decisions and you are quite properly 
asking for F03/0065 to be given a C. No-one else has so far asked for 
this. It would be helpful to me to hear opinions on this matter from 
others, specially Nick and David.

It is not correct to say that the whole interpretation process has been 
delegated to J3. Just as for the standard itself, the detailed work is 
delegated, but the final decision is for WG5 to make.

With best wishes,

John.

Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> 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.
> ________________________________________________________________________
>