(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5777) Interesting paragraph in the WG9 SC22 report

[Bill Long]

On Aug 1, 2016, at 12:28 AM, Van Snyder <van.snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> "3.2.1 Risks
> 
> "Unexpected technical comment at the SC 22 level has the potential to
> delay the work of WG 9. WG 9 mitigates this risk by providing mechanisms
> for full treatment of NB technical concerns at the RG and WG level.
> Although we observe all requirements of the directives, we view SC 22
> and JTC1 level balloting as approval of documents that have already been
> completed.?

Is this some boilerplate a lawyer came up with?  If they provide full treatment of NB concerns at the WG9 level, why would they fear unexpected technical comment at the SC level?   The last sentence seems to say they want only the final ISO vote up-or-down with no changes.   Seems like a pretty major departure from current practice. 



> 
> "RG" is an abbreviation for "Rapporteur Group."  The US RG contributed
> the draft of the 2012 Ada standard (ISO/IEC 8652).  I don't know whether
> the US RG operates under the aegis of INCITS.

Unlikely. The only INCITS PL 22 subgroups are 3 (Fortran), 11 (C), and (16) C++ .

Cheers,
Bill

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

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support  &                                  voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                     fax:  651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101