(j3.2006) US-01, US-03, US-08. US-14

[Van Snyder]

On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 18:40 -0600, Dan Nagle wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I believe all WG5 approved for any work item was the idea,
> not any specifications, let alone syntax and edits.
> 
> Some of the items are so simple, it is difficult
> to think of any other than the most straight-forward solution.
> 
> But I believe any specifications existing were not approved
> by WG5.  So we should have specifications proposed,
> then syntax, then edits.  Edits now may be premature.


It's getting a bit late to propose we ought to sit on our hands for a
while longer.


> 
> This is how the committees have always (in my experience)
> worked in the past.


Look at the format that John required for proposals to WG5 for work
items for 2008.

There were REQUIRED sections:


Submitted by:
Status:
Basic functionality:
Rationale:
Estimated impact:
Detailed specification:


I suggested we ought to use this format to propose work items for the
present revision, and the proposal was rejected.

Now, all we have to guide us is hand waving.

Can the "champions" of the proposals that got accepted PLEASE write at
least specifications?

We sat on our hands for five years without gathering any input for
proposals for the present work plan.  Are we going to sit on our hands
again, now that we have a work plan?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20130816/83ea80ff/attachment.html