(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5822) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot

[Cohen Malcolm]

Hi John,

>C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future
>editorial processing

This is not addressing my objection, not to mention it contradicts your 
previous sentence "all four clearly passed", as it says these have only 
conditionally passed, and that condition is currently not satisfied 
therefore these have not passed.

Aside: J3 is supposed to get the technical details right on EVERY feature! 
There is nothing special about THESE features.  We've swallowed enormous 
camels of features without stooping to the nonsense of conditional 
authorisation, why on earth are we straining at the gnats now?

If you think the votes passed, and on the face of the voting figures one 
might indeed think that, for goodness sake just declare them passed.

As for the comments, J3 members either
(a) were the ones making the comments so will be pursuing them anyway if 
they think them important, or
(b) have already responded to the comments saying they will do something 
about it.

I see no need for any further coercion.  Are you trying to say we have to 
take these ballot comments as official input and have to report back to WG5? 
That would be crazily bureaucratic for what is, after all, just a straw 
vote, not a meeting resolution.  Or you just want to unnecessarily demand 
that J3 members do what they already said they would do?

P.S. I am starting to regret my agreement that we could add these minor 
flourishes at all, and beginning to think we ought to have just ruled every 
one of them out of order at the last J3 meeting.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Reid
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 6:43 PM
To: WG5
Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5821) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot



Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> This is a vote whether to put something in the standard, or not.

Well, all four clearly passed, so you have authority to put them all in
the draft standard. I was expecting that the comments would be
considered at the Feb. J3 meeting. How's this more precise wording?

C vote passes, subject to J3 considering the comments during future
editorial processing

Cheers,

John.


>
> The votes must either PASS or FAIL.  I object in the strongest possible
> terms to the nonsense that "It passes subject to something happening in 
> the
> future."
>
> If a vote does not PASS the editor will not put the feature into the
> standard, and given the timing that really rules it out of consideration
> until the 2020 revision.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Reid
> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 11:54 PM
> To: WG5
> Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5819) Result of straw ballot
>
> Dear all,
>
> Here is the tentative result of the ballot on four small technical
> changes. Please let me know by Dec 8 if I have missed a ballot or made
> any other error.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ukfortran mailing list
> https://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran
>
>
_______________________________________________
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, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.