(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5939) Convener's report from SC22 meeting
Thu Aug 17 16:58:07 EDT 2017
Bill Long wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 12:11 PM, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>>>> HI John,
>>>> Your SC22 report included:
>>>> "ISO has introduced an electronic meetings platform, which I have chosen to
>>>> ignore because it does not address any problem that WGs have, but rather gives
>>>> them difficulties. Unfortunately, it will be obligatory from 1 October."
>>>> Does 'obligatory'? mean that during WG5 mode at joint meetings, we will be obligated to look only at each other through pictures on our laptops, and speak to each other only via the internet? This is the popular 'Millennial' mode of communication where two people stand facing each other or sit across from each other, but communicate only via a joint facetime session on their iPhones. For the purposes of WG5, that seems less effective than actually employing direct speaking between people, which is also a more familiar form of communication for most of the WG5 members.
>> I should have explained that the "electronic meetings platform" is for
>> registering for a meeting.
> Thanks for the clarification,
>> It means that ISO will know exactly who the
>> attendees are.
> Alternatively, they could read the minutes in which there is a list of the people attending.
Hum. I need to be more precise. I should have learnt that lesson by now!
I meant to say "It means that ISO can control who the
> If all we have to do is lick ?JOIN?, I don?t see a problem. INCITS/ANSI/BSI/... will have to send a list of approved joiners before the meeting. Will a new list be needed for each meeting? Or will being certified once be good for all future meetings?
You can only do this if ISO have been told that you are a member of your
national body, which usually means that you have paid a sub. I think
money lies at the heart of this.
> This does seem at odds with the whole idea of us being a ?panel of experts? rather than representatives of specific countries.
I guess the main substance to that idea is that we no longer have
country votes at the WG5 level.
>> It might mean, for example, that if the meeting is in one
>> of its building, a national standards body might restrict access to
>> these people. You are right to say that a way round might be to use
>> electronic communication, but making it joint with J3 seems better.
> Bill Long longb at cray.com
> Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
> Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9143
> Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/ Suite 1000/ Bloomington, MN 55425
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
More information about the J3