[J3] (SC22WG5.6246) 2022 WG5 meeting
Bill Long
longb at cray.com
Sun Jun 21 15:34:02 EDT 2020
> On Jun 21, 2020, at 2:06 AM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> NVIDIA has a number of offices across the country,
NIVIDA’s web site lists office locations. Boulder, for the WG5 2022 meeting, might be an option, and for European WG5 meetings, I see there is a Delft office. Delft has been quite popular as a meeting site for WG5 in the past.
> 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.
The seemingly obsessive hatred of Las Vegas is very hard to understand for those of us who have been there. Are you concerned that potential attendees with mental health issues related to gambling addiction might be discouraged? Note that the current meeting hotel is NOT on the strip and is a Marriott, and hence has no casino and is not connected to a casino. I’ve never known J3 or PL22.3 to sponsor a “casino night” or any activity involving gambling. We’re way too busy during the week to have time for something like that.
>
> 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.
>
Hotel cost is only one of the several advantages of Las Vegas. Besides, corporate VP’s are not likely to spend money unless they can be shown a commercial advantage to the company. Another of the advantages of Las Vegas is that it is “neutral territory”, sort of a Switzerland for compiler vendors, where everyone is on equal ground. Both of the current proposals for WG5 2022 (Boulder and Berkeley) are hosted by institutions that include a large base of Fortran users. This is seen as a lot more neutral compared to hosting by a vendor. (Although, we did have a well received WG5 meeting hosted by IBM in Canada, so it can be done.)
Cheers,
BIll
> --
> 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
>
>
>
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
More information about the J3
mailing list