[J3] (SC22WG5.6208) Re: (SC22WG5.6204) [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: [ukfortran] October meeting visa invitation letter

[Damian Rouson]

I second all of the points in Ondřej's email.

Damian

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 12:10 PM Ondřej Čertík via J3 <
j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:

> Dear Committee,
>
> Bryce, thank you for this detailed explanation how C++ does it. That's
> precisely what I am trying to get the Fortran Committee to eventually do
> also. But step by step in an evolutionary matter, so we first created the
> J3 GitHub repository, tried it for a few papers, it was a success, then
> we'll try for more papers, until we get there.
>
> A few people suggested this is a revolution. It's not. This is a well
> tested workflow, from other committees, as well as our own Fortran
> Committee on a few papers. Revolution would be if we got rid of the
> j3-fortran.org website and did not post papers there at all, and only
> used GitHub. That's not what we are doing. We are supplementing the primary
> place j3-fortran.org to discuss papers with a secondary place at GitHub
> to track each idea / papers and have a platform for discussion / work
> between meetings. But at meetings, we are still using  j3-fortran.org to
> submit papers and to vote on them.
>
> Steve contemplated perhaps hosting some board ourselves. Please don't do
> that, unless you understand well all the Cons of that approach:
>
> * we will have to build a community again there --- it was a *lot* of work
> that I and others had to put into the J3 GitHub site. Somebody will have to
> put in the same amount of work to make it a success.
>
> * it will not be as easy for people to contribute, because people have to
> create yet another login that they have to remember, and not just committee
> members, but every single member of the wide community that we want to
> attract. All of them already have logins at GitHub. In fact, every voting
> member of the J3 committee already has an account at GitHub, see here where
> I collected all the GitHub IDs:
> https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/155, the only
> voting members that are not there yet is Dan, Van and Bob. I am happy to
> help each of them personally (off the mailinglist).
>
> * it will be yet another place to discuss things.
>
> * We have to actively maintain the service. That's non-trivial time that
> somebody has to invest into it.
>
> Bryce explained in another email that there is no perfect solution, and in
> practice, GitHub does work well. If, however, there comes up an
> insurmountable obstacle in practice (not in theory) why we cannot use
> GitHub, only then let's bite the bullet and move to our self-hosted GitLab,
> that Reuben and I offer to maintain for the Committee, that will provide
> all the features that we need from GitHub, but it will be open source
> software, hosted by ourselves (but with all the Cons mentioned above).
>
> Until then, please let's just continue using GitHub. It works really well,
> and instead of starting over, let's rather keep building the community and
> invite them to submit and collaborate with us on even more papers for the
> next meeting.
>
> Thank you,
> Ondrej
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020, at 5:53 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via J3
> wrote:
> > There are plenty of ISO and INCITS working groups that conduct
> > business on GitHub.
> >
> > For ISO WG21 and INCITS PL22.16 (C++), we have mailing lists, and we
> > make extension use of GitHub.
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus
> >
> > Every paper is tracked by a GitHub issue:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues
> >
> > Using wg21.link, our lookup service, you can easily get a paper and
> > locate the GitHub issue and status for a paper:
> >
> > http://wg21.link/P1255 <- link to the latest revision of the paper
> > http://wg21.link/P1255R1 <- link to revision 1 of the paper
> > http://wg21.link/P1255/github <- GitHub issue and current status for a
> paper
> >
> > As you can see from the last link, the GitHub issue for each paper
> > includes a comment with a summary of each discussion of said paper,
> > including poll results and the guidance to authors. The GitHub issue
> > tracks the progress of the paper, from initial incubation, through
> > design review groups, through wording review groups, and ending with
> > the issue being closed after a pull request has been made to the
> > sources for the standard applying the change.
> >
> > National Body comments are processed on GitHub:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot
> >
> > Issues are tracked via GitHub:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/issues/issues
> >
> > The Latex sources for the standard are on GitHub:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/draft
> >
> > The Project Editor and his assistants manage changes to the standard
> > via pull requests:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pulls
> >
> > Major editing projects are tracked via GitHub projects:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/projects/1
> >
> > Subgroup agendas for face to face meetings are created using GitHub
> projects:
> >
> > https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/projects/19
> >
> > ISO WG21/INCITS PL22.16 is about 1 order of magnitude larger than
> > WG5/J3; we have about ~250 people from ~15 national bodies and ~25
> > active study groups at each of our face to face meetings. We have
> > people from all sorts of backgrounds, organizations, and countries,
> > with all sorts of different requirements. Some people can't or won't
> > use any Google services; some people disable Javascript in their web
> > browser. These limitations have not prevented us from making use of
> > organizational tools. The number of such individuals is small, so
> > we're able to make accomodations, and not everyone has to use or have
> > access to everything. Some people just participate via the mailing
> > list, some people just participate at face to face meetings, some
> > people just participate on GitHub or Slack. The only people who need
> > to have access to and use all of the different services are the
> > officers and leadership.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM Van Snyder via J3
> > <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 15:10 +0000, Bill Long via J3 wrote:
> > > > some people have an aversion to, and concerns about,  products from
> > > > Microsoft (of which GitHub is one, and Skype another).   Google and
> > > > Facebook have acquired tarnished reputations  as well.  And don’t get
> > > > the cyber security folks started about ZOOM.
> > >
> > > I believe IEEE P1722 did everything via a-mail. I believe they did not
> > > have any face-to-face meetings. Ultimately, formal "motions" were
> > > circulated, which contained edits. These were passed (or rejected) with
> > > formal e-mail ballots.
> > >
> > > I haven't asked my contacts in WG9 and ARG, but it seems the Ada
> > > committees do a lot of work via e-mail.  They have a yearly meeting,
> > > usually in conjunction with Ada Europe and the Conference on Software
> > > Reliability, about three days total. I don't know for sure, but based
> on
> > > the number of different names I see in e-mail traffic, I think WG9 has
> > > more members than WG5.
> > >
> > > Not to say the WG5 and J3 could switch to that mode tomorrow, or that
> we
> > > would find it useful to move rapidly in that direction, but some people
> > > have made it work.
> > >
> > > At least we ought to try to get more done via e-mail between meetings,
> > > especially so that we don't get ambushed on Friday after working all
> > > week on a project.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > --
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200501/3b73376c/attachment-0001.htm>