(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5733) Revision of the Standard
Mon Jun 20 10:56:08 EDT 2016
Your suggested change is fine by me.
David Muxworthy wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:39, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> "In JTC 1, NP ballot is not required for the revision or amendment of an
>> existing standard or Technical Specification, provided that the
>> committee passes a resolution containing the following elements:
>> 1) target dates;
>> 2) confirmation of scope (including whether it will be expanded, in
>> which case the process for new proposals shall apply); and
>> 3) project editor(s) if already assigned."
>> In turn this means that I just have to ask SC22 to pass the relevant
>> resolution in September. I would still like to show SC22 our latest
>> draft, but I don't think a ballot is needed. Does everyone agree with
>> this? If so, item 5.1 of the minutes should be amended.
> I agree. I am afraid the draft minutes are incorrect anyway. It was
> the revised ISO directives, not the JTC1 ones, that were being
> referenced at the meeting, without taking account of the JTC1
> Supplement. The 2016 JTC1 Supplement has not yet been published but
> it appears from the draft that the words quoted above (section 2.3.1)
> are unchanged.
> The simplest fix to the minutes would be to delete the relevant
> sentence, and to split the paragraph into two, making 5.1 read:
> "John Reid said he intended to submit a new work item proposal for
> the revised standard at the SC22 meeting in September.
> Revised ISO Directives would require wording and format changes in
> the document."
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
More information about the J3