[J3] (SC22WG5.6175) October meeting visa invitation letter
Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
brycelelbach at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 04:13:36 EDT 2020
The ISO C++ committee bought (high quality and portable) projectors for our
meetings about two years ago; volunteers and committee officers are
responsible for transporting them to and from meetings. I have one of them.
I am planning to be at Fortran meetings (both WG5 and PL22.3) going forward.
How about I ask the ISO C++ Foundation (who owns the projectors) if it
would be alright for me to bring it to the PL22.3 meetings, so that we have
it available if we need it? If we don't need it, no big deal.
Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
US Programming Language Standards (PL22) Chair
ISO C++ Library Evolution Chair
CppCon and C++Now Program Chair
CUDA Core C++ Libraries (Thrust, CUB, libcu++) Lead @ NVIDIA
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:23 Steve Lionel via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> On 4/28/2020 12:31 PM, Ondřej Čertík via J3 wrote:
> > Thanks for this initiative. Having a projector and a telecon capability
> would be extremely beneficial.
> I'm not convinced a projector is needed, with presentation sharing.
> Often a projector is available at WG5 venues - as I wrote earlier I'm
> not aware that the Las Vegas Residence Inn (J3 venue) has one we can
> use, but maybe it does (for a fee, I am sure.) What I usually see, when
> local attendees are watching a projection and remote attendees are
> watching what is shared, is that the presenter talks to the room and
> not to the whole audience, and sometimes points to things on the
> projection screen leaving the remote viewers clueless. I suppose video
> can help with that, but that adds complexity.
> Telecon capability, though, is going to be required. The question is who
> will pay for it, something I am working on. J3 can buy equipment with
> funds from meeting fees, but it would be nice if INCITS or even ISO can
> provide some funding. There's also a logistical issue with the way J3
> operates in subgroups that tend to meet together at odd times and then
> the members go off by themselves to work on papers. That needs a
> rethink, and I'd love to see some concrete suggestions in this area.
> Speaking of which...
> > Thanks also for the willingness to reevaluate how J3 works. I agree
> that's needed. If you wouldn't mind, can you please elaborate more what you
> mean by "time-shifted engagement"? Let's discuss the details.
> That was Nathan's term - I took it as meaning getting away from doing
> the development only at J3 meetings, which is what I have hopes your
> Github can help with, as I discuss in my latest blog post. It will
> require a willingness across J3 to change the way we work, and needs to
> be established collectively. Really this is a J3 thing and not WG5,
> unless WG5 wants to "take back" technical development of the standard
> from J3, in which case we have additional issues to deal with, and I
> don't think that would be productive.
> There is a great deal to be said, however, for the personal interactions
> and exchanges of ideas that happen when everyone is together in the same
> room,and chatting 1-1 in corridors, etc. Physical meetings are more
> efficient and encourage attendees to devote most of their attention to
> the standard work at hand. That simply doesn't happen with virtual
> meetings. But members who want to do the work, even though they're
> unable to attend in person, should still be able to participate.
> In my mind, the biggest step we can take is to get work-list papers
> written between meetings, with tuning by small teams of interested
> parties, so that when we do meet in person we can get things done
> faster. We don't need any equipment to do that, just a shift of mindset
> and a willingness to siphon off some time from "the day job" to make it
> happen. (I understand, though, that some members simply may not be in a
> position where they are allowed to devote resources to J3 between
> meetings.) I'll note that often J3 votes to change or choose among
> approaches with straw votes, so we can't simply present papers as a
> "take it or leave it". Again, needs some thought and discussion.
> P.S. Note that I am following up to the WG5 list where this discussion
> started. J3 subscribers (the WG5 list forwards to the J3 list) need to
> remember to replace the J3 list address with WG5 when following up.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the J3