(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5824) [ukfortran] Result of straw ballot

Cohen Malcolm malcolm
Wed Dec 7 03:00:43 EST 2016

I am ok with the revised wording, however the document has at least one 
non-ASCII character, e.g. on line 51; this should be corrected.


-----Original Message----- 
From: John Reid
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1:51 AM
To: WG5
Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5823) (j3.2006) Result of straw ballot


N2119 says "This ballot is modeled on what we do for interpretations.
They have been passed by J3 and need to be approved by WG5." For
interpretations, we leave it to J3 (or EDIT) to deal with comments
without expecting any further feedback. This is what I thought should
happen here. To make this clear, I have changed the draft result to

"All four changes are approved by WG5.

WG5 requests that J3 considers the comments at its next meeting."

I hope this is OK with you.

David has pointed out that I failed to include your ballot. I am very
sorry about this - I had filed it in the wrong directory. I know that it
is easy to make such a mistake, which I always ask people to verify that
I have their votes recorded correctly.

New draft attached.


Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> 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.
> ________________________________________________________________________

ukfortran mailing list

.............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. 

More information about the J3 mailing list