(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5996) Let's start over on the straw ballot

[David Muxworthy]

Do you approve making the technical change to add a requirement that the variable specified for STAT= in MOVE_ALLOC and the ATOMIC_xxx intrinsics have a minimum decimal range of 4? See J3 paper 17-219 for details.
YES

Do you approve disallowing a coarray or coindexed variable on the left side of an intrinsic assignment statement if it is an unallocated allocatable variable? This is an incompatibility with Fortran 2008 which did not disallow this. See J3 paper 17-228 for details.
YES

Do you approve making the technical change to disallow coarrays of TEAM_TYPE? See J3 papers 17-202r1 and 17-250r2 for details.
YES

Do you approve, after making changes passed at J3 meeting 214, creating a Draft International Standard (DIS) and sending it for ballot? This would meet the current development schedule.
YES

Do you approve changing the informal name of the in-development Fortran standard from "Fortran 2015" to "Fortran 2018"? See J3 paper 17-193r1 for details.
YES (with comment)

The content of the language revision was specified in broad terms in
2015 but detailed development has continued and even now is not
finalized.  Hence 2017 or 2018 would be a more appropriate name.

What finally became Fortran 90 had three previous names (82, 8X, 88).
The committee felt able to change the name to match reality.

Outside its immediate community Fortran is widely seen as a legacy
language, somewhat on a par with COBOL.  For example in classifying
its specialist groups the British Computer Society recently allocated
Fortran to 'History of computing' rather than to 'Software
development'.  I am repeatedly asked such things as 'Is Fortran still
going?' and 'Why are you wasting your time on such an old language?'.

Hence to publish Fortran 2015 in 2018 (a three-year backward gap being
longer than for any previous revision) would, in the wider world, only
tend to reinforce the perception of Fortran as being behind the times.