[J3] (SC22WG5.6248) 2022 WG5 meeting

Sun Jun 21 03:06:28 EDT 2020

Bill,

NVIDIA has a number of offices across the country, from the east coast to
the west coast, which would be suitable for hosting. I am not suggesting
something that is convenient for my organization or myself.

Let me be a bit clearer: we will pay to host meetings at locationz that
meet the requirements of WG5 (or PL22.3 for a PL22.3) if the alternative is
another meeting in Las Vegas.

If the cost of hotels is preventing key participants from attending
meetings not held in Las Vegas, let me know and I will explore getting
funding for those individuals from my VP.

--
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 Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 23:34 Bill Long <longb at cray.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 10:04 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via J3 <
> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> >
> > Vipul,
> >
> > I very much agree that Las Vegas is not a good location.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  For a long list of fact-based reasons, Las Vegas
> is better than most other options. After all, the city is designed
> specifically for visitors and meetings/conventions.  For those of us who
> belong to the Hilton Grand Vacations program, Las Vegas has 5 of the
> program’s facilities, and housing costs are essentially zero.
>
> >
> > If WG5 or PL22.3 is ever considering hosting another meeting in Las
> Vegas, we would be happy to arrange for that meeting to be hosted either at
> an NVIDIA facility
>
> People are always willing to propose meetings be held where they
> live/work, as the meeting becomes easy and cheap to attend.  For everyone
> else, a PL22.3 meeting hosted by NVIDIA would end up being more expensive
> than Las Vegas, discouraging attendance.  I hope that is not a new goal.
> (Typically, we look for host support only for the WG5 meetings. For PL22.3
> meetings that do not include WG5, we have long-term favorable contracts in
> Las Vegas, and I would expect to continue with that favorable arrangement.)
>
>
> > or in DC
>
> We did have a WG5 meeting in Fairfax (basically DC).  It was well
> attended, but I did not sense much interest in going back there, and the
> members who arranged the meeting are no longer in the area.
>
> > at no cost to the committee, with as many meeting rooms as needed, A/V
> support, catering, comparable hotel room rates, cheap flights, and easy
> access.
> >
> > Pasadena would be a fine location.
>
> We have debated the Pasadena option several times and every time it was
> rejected.  Difficulties included poor (or very expensive) transportation
> to/from the airport, long distances between the housing and meeting
> locations, and the mid-summer weather (though Las Vegas also has this last
> problem).  Personally, I like the Caltech campus.  But decisions need to be
> driven by hard facts.
>
> I understand that Pasadena is convenient for people on the West Coast. But
> Berkeley Lab is even more centrally located and has none of the primary
> defects of Pasadena.  And for the goal to promote increased diversity,
> Berkeley would be a lot more welcoming and appealing than Pasadena. Indeed,
> the last WG5 meeting at Berkeley Lab had the most diverse attendance of all
> the meetings I’ve attended.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
> >
> > No one has been excluded. No one was "cancelled", censured, or punished.
> No punitive actions have been taken.
> >
> > Most of those involved in the recent discussions chose to participate in
> a calm, honest, and frank discussion. Some did not.
> >
> > I hope no one feels the sword of Damocles is hanging over their head.
> But I do hope that we all are giving extra thought and care to our conduct
> and how we express ourselves.
> >
> > --
> > 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 Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 16:06 Vipul Parekh via J3 <
> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> > Under better circumstances, WG5 and J3 would undoubtedly have received
> an offer from Van to have Pasadena, CA as the location for the meeting, one
> that he had made many, many times previously but which was never accepted.
> I believe it was to his anguish based on what I had discerned even with my
> limited interactions.
> >
> > Should ISO and INCITS and by extension, WG5 and J3, really intend to
> advance on the diversity and inclusivity (D&I) front generally and
> especially on the gender and other minority representation globally, then
> it should immediately take note of many, many diverse points:
> >
> > 1) Honest and frank discussions and an environment that can foster them
> is a must,
> >
> > 2) Las Vegas, given its image and all that it 'sells' as possible, has
> considerable disadvantages from a D&I perspective.  Arguments in favor of
> this location, particularly by those who have an overwhelming amount of
> "soft" influence on the functionings of the committee, ostensibly on the
> basis of cheap flights, hotels, and easy access, fail to take into account
> the concerns of other potential attendees with differences on the diversity
> spectrum have with the LV location,
> >
> > 3) Pasadena, CA has a considerable number of attractive qualities that
> have been overlooked until now, unfortunately.
> >
> > 4) It is a no-brainer any consideration of true inclusivity begins with
> the notion of not being exclusive.  And no one sensing or fearing -
> consciously or unconsciously - they will be excluded or worse shunned or
> abused or otherwise 'canceled' on account of their ancestry or their words
> directed elsewhere or being insufficiently penitent even when their
> *actions* generally and specifically are otherwise conducive to the goals
> of D&I.  I think what transpired recently with the censure following the
> discussions regarding the ISO gender survey has laid a seed of 'cancel
> culture' that played into the exclusion.  I think this will harm the effort
> at improved D&I with WG5 and J3.  Following the recent email threads and
> what has transpired and given how I perceive and comprehend things that are
> ever so orthogonal to the developing 'orthodoxy' on so many aspects
> currently, I can feel the sword of Damocles hanging over my head too ever
> so sharply and the clock ticking toward my own 'cancellation'.  I don't
> believe true advancement in D&I is possible if matters remain as they are -
> organizations may achieve some numerical/superficial measures, but not real
> progress.
> >
> > 5) Both an informal and formal effort to address and overcome the
> exclusion (and which strikes directly against any and all D&I initiatives)
> that has taken place, regardless of whether it was voluntary, will go a
> long way toward addressing future issues as well as easing the immediate
> concerns of someone like me.  I feel a concerted effort to bring Van and
> JPL 'back in the fold', one that might begin with a gesture and overture
> followed possibly by genuine initiative and acceptance to have Pasadena as
> the location of the next WG5 meeting will be an act of 'healing' for all
> that will go a long way toward fostering D&I.  Perhaps this effort is
> underway, kudos if it is.
> >
> > 6) One can credibly argue an organization such as ISO is motivated per
> its "environmental, social and governance" ESG charter (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corporate_governance)
> to take various actions such as the one which led to the recent gender
> survey.
> >     * Travel, especially airline travel, retains a heavy environmental
> footprint with carbon and pollutants.
> >      * From a social perspective, recent WG5 and J3 emails themselves
> provided an instance of a case of someone of a different gender being
> hesitant to travel; there is considerable evidence involving gender and
> parenthood and diminished in-person conference/meeting attendance.
> > With both environmental and social considerations, I hope all WG5 future
> meetings will be dual-mode and they will permit and enable *virtual* and
> in-person attendees to participate and contribute equitably.  For WG5 and
> J3 to make this happen successfully is another challenge it must willingly
> and immediately accept if they wish to be truly virtuous in their signal to
> improve D&I.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vipul Parekh
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:15 PM Steve Lionel via J3 <
> j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> > All:
> >
> > It's time to look for volunteers to host the 2022 WG5 meeting, which is,
> > by our alternation-convention, to be in North America. Dan has offered
> > (and received permission) to host us at Mesa Labs in Boulder, Colorado.
> > As wonderful as that is, I'd be pleased if someone who hasn't hosted
> > recently (or ever) to step up - Dan hosted us in 2016. Don't be shy!
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200621/e6091ce1/attachment-0001.htm>