[J3] work on F202X at #217?
Dan Nagle
danlnagle at me.com
Mon Oct 1 11:30:07 EDT 2018
Hi,
<sigh>
The "Fortran 2018 Sessions" should read "Fortran 202x Sessions"
I guess plenary sessions should be listed as "work on the draft",
where "draft" means the current draft, not the one already balloted.
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 08:23 , Vipul Parekh via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:46 PM Bill Long via J3
> <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anton,
>>
>> This is my take on the outcome of the Berkeley meeting and J3’s job for meetings 217 (Oct 2018) and 218 (Feb 2019):
>>
>> ..
>>> On Jul 20, 2018, at 6:03 AM, Anton Shterenlikht via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to know what work
>>> is going to happen on F202X at
>>> meeting 217 in LV?
>>> ..
>>> Realistically what progress
>>> can be expected at 217 towards F202X?
>> ..
>> I hope quite a bit. I’d hate to have to do it all at 218 in February.
>> ..
>
>
> The draft agenda for upcoming meeting 217 at Las Vegas (Oct 15-19,
> 2018) does not list any 202X sessions:
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/18/agenda217.txt
>
> So it's unclear when and how the work toward Fortran 202X, especially
> in preparation for the Feb 2019 meeting will take place..
>
> Can Anton's question above please be addressed again, "Realistically
> what progress can be expected at 217 towards F202X?"
>
> I ask because I need to decide on participation, especially in terms
> of attendance costs given the lack of institutional (employer, etc.)
> financial support.
>
> Thanks much,
> Vipul Parekh
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
More information about the J3
mailing list