[J3] (SC22WG5.6223) J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #36

[Bill Long]

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Ondřej Čertík via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020, at 12:56 PM, Steve Lionel via J3 wrote:
>> On 6/3/2020 12:00 PM, Ondřej Čertík via J3 wrote:
>>> I want to point attention to F18/017, of which there was a heated debate at the last meeting and I believe people didn't know what they are voting upon. Technically it passed at the last meeting, but many people regretted their vote afterwards.
>> 
>> The protocol here is that if you object to the interp, passed by UC at 
>> m221 (there is no "technically"), your organization should respond to 
>> the ballot with a -N- for this interp, and add comments explaining what 
>> you think is wrong with it. It would be additionally helpful if you 
>> would identify changes which would change your vote to approval. Anyone 
>> else who has changed their mind is free to do the same (one per 
>> organization.)
>> 
>> If it passes J3, it then the corrigendum goes for a WG5 letter ballot.
>> 
>> To say that "people didn't know what they are voting upon" is insulting, 
>> don't you think? I believe that the following bullets from the ISO Code 
>> of Conduct, of which I know you are familiar, are relevant:
>> 
>> ▸ Respecting others and the diversity of professional opinions – 
>> scientific, technical, or otherwise
>> ▸ Embracing the concepts of compromise and consensus-building in the 
>> development of ISO standards
>> ▸ Accepting and respecting consensus decisions of the committee or 
>> working group and of the ISO/TMB
> 
> I apologize for my wording, I was trying to write it quickly before people vote on this, and indeed, it didn't come out right. I am sorry. I didn't mean to insult anyone.
> 
> What I meant to write is that there was a heated discussion right after the vote, and that I believe we should have a
> period of time to discuss the interp, and only then vote. I can see already you and Van voted on this.
> 
> I need time to full understand the interp, to consult it with others in my organization (that reported the issue) and see if it fixes it. 
> 
> In the mean time, I ask that we please have a discussion before forcing a vote.

While on my first reading of Ondrej’s post it seemed a bit contentious, nonetheless I think it was a valuable contribution to point out an additional discussion of the topic that we should at least consider before voting.  We have 30 days to vote, so I don’t feel “forced”. 

An issue I have had with interps in the past has been that, when the original question is "what is the expected output?” then the Answer would be much more useful if it included the correct output (after including the effects of any changes made to the standard).   

Cheers,
Bill

> 
> Ondrej

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
Cray, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company/ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425