(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5914) Preview of possible feature survey

[Bill Long]

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 3:18 PM, Van Snyder <Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 18:52 +0000, Bill Long wrote:
>> It might also be helpful to limit the number of proposals from any one
>> individual, which would force him/her to focus on what is really
>> important.  A number like 5 seems reasonable. I don?t recall more that
>> that number of acceptable proposals from anyone in the past.  It could
>> help cut down on the amount of commitee time spent weed-whacking.
> 
> This is clearly aimed at me.
> 
> Limiting the number of submissions to the number of previously accepted
> proposals is stupid and unfair (has Tom Knox had any accepted proposals
> yet?).

Nothing above suggests limiting Tom to zero proposals.  I agree that would be unfair. 


> 
> And five is stupid and unfair.

Five is negotiable. Maybe 8, or even 10.  But 50 is obviously unfair to the committee, especially if they are ones repeatedly rejected in the past.  Such abuse would be unacceptable. 


> 
>  Some of
> the rejected ones have been proposed by others for the next revision,
> e.g., parameterized modules.
> 

I was not aware of any proposals on the table yet.  And certainly none for parameterized modules, which, as you note,  we have already rejected. 


> We had an organized process in 2004-05.

But the objective this time is for a smaller revision.  The point of the discussion is to have a different process that might actually achieve that goal. 


>   My list now numbers about 155 items.  I plan to submit all of
> them, one paper each, in the format John designed for 2008, or an agreed
> revision of that format.

Submitting 155 papers of proposals would be unacceptable by any criterion I can imagine.  Can?t you select a handful that are relevant and new (i.e. not previously rejected), and leave the rest alone?    All of us are faced with filtering pitches made to us for new features, and explaining to the proponents why the bad ones are bad.   I agree that in marginal cases, getting committee input is good.  But once the committee?s decision is made, then there needs to be a sufficient change in the environment to justify bringing the proposal back again.  

Cheers,
Bill


> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

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