(j3.2006) CD ballot process

[Van Snyder]

I am very disappointed by this process.

In twenty years (plus one meeting in 1986), I have never seen any other
paper disappear without any discussion.  Every other paper of mine that
came out of subgroup with "no action" was discussed with me, either
in /data or in a sidebar with at least one member of another subgroup.
No other paper has ever been ruled out of order without discussion.

Does anybody care to offer up a reason for keeping locality specs?  I
gave two reasons why I believe they're undesirable.  Nobody has defended
them.  Nobody has objected to my reasoning.

Here's one more reason, not in 17-144:  They amplify the goofiness of
statement function dummy arguments, which we decided we sufficiently
dislike to print them in obsolescent font.  There are too many things
that get their attributes by magic.  Why add more?

If we keep the locality specs, could we print them in obsolescent font?

On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 19:01 +0000, Menard, Lorri wrote:
> Attached is the list as I have it right now.
> 
> Please double check that your favorite comment has made it onto the document; chide me gently if it has not.
> 
> The only one I *know* might be pulled is the last one
> 
> 	Thanks --
> 
> 		--Lorri
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Dan Nagle
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 12:47 PM
> To: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Subject: (j3.2006) CD ballot process
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please post to this list an email with
> 
> 1. Your vote (approve CD with comment, disapprove CD with comment, abstain, whatever)
> 
> 2. Your comments
> 
> Lorri will combine the comments into the INCITS .doc form.
> Please have your comments to Lorri by Wednesday, April 12.
> Have mercy that Lorri is on East coast time.
> 
> Lorri and Debbie work together to make a ballot, including comments.
> 
> A two-week ballot will be run with the US vote and comments starting Friday April 14.
> 
> The deadlines are a bit tight, but we knew the schedule was aggressive when we approved it.
> 
> --
> 
> Cheers!
> Dan Nagle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3