[J3] Concluding J3 meeting 223

[Robert Corbett]

The two week rule was in effect when I joinedthe committee (May 2009).  The way it workedat that time was that papers submitted beforethe deadline were given priority over paperssubmitted after the deadline.  If a paperarrived after the deadline, members could askthat consideration be deferred until thenext meeting.  IIRC, one member could notstop a paper from being considered, but twocould.  The committee was half the size itcurrently is, so perhaps more objectionswould be needed now.
The rule worked after a fashion, but it hadthe effect of slowing work on the standard.In compensation, we had four meetings a yearinstead of three.
The number of meetings each year was reducedbecause of the cost to the members.  Myemployer at the time was happy to have travelexpenses reduced by the cost of one meetinga year.  My employer was very happy that Idid not attend most of the internationalmeetings.
Robert Corbett
    On Wednesday, March 3, 2021, 9:20:30 AM PST, Milan Curcic via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:  
 
 Hi Brian & J3,
Thank you and everybody else for an insightful meeting. I learned a lot.
As a new member, I'll share a few observations from the meeting. What stood out to me was:
1. How very last-minute most of the papers were submitted;2. How fast things were moving during the meeting (e.g. defining straw vote options).
For many small and simple papers, it works well. But for larger ones like the enumeration papers, it was too much for me to take in and think about in depth. When it came to a straw vote, it was difficult to consider all options and their implications. Several other members expressed the same concern.
Ample lead time for initial (pre-meeting) paper uploads would help members 1) read papers; 2) understand them; 3) discuss them with their Org; and 4) develop an informed and independent opinion. It would also help the author of the paper--of course you'd want members to have enough time to appreciate and support your paper.
INCITS lists two weeks as the cut-off time. That may be overkill for small papers, and not long enough for large feature papers. Let's discuss what would be an appropriate cut-off time, and if different papers deserve different treatment.
Last, I felt uncomfortable for a few moments during the meeting when the discussion got a bit heated. Please stay patient with and respectful to others, ultimately we all want the same thing, a better Fortran.
Cheers,Milan
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:02 PM Brian Friesen via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:

Hi everyone,

J3 meeting 223 concluded today. Thank you all for your participation.
Thanks especially to those in the UK (Nathan, John, Anton, any
others?) and in Japan (Malcolm) for being awake at such an uncommon
hour. Thanks also to Lorri for leading J3 into the virtual meeting
world as acting Chair at meeting 222, which was J3's first all-virtual
meeting back in October 2020.

The main action item following meeting 223 is for the Project Editor
(Malcolm) to produce a new draft of the `007` document for meeting
224, to be held jointly with WG5 in June 2021, which will also be a
virtual meeting. J3 members with opinions regarding the "split week"
format of meeting 223 are encouraged to share their thoughts on the
WG5 mailing list.

Finally, it is incumbent upon each of us to be respectful of other
points of view when discussing features and papers. Some topics can be
polarizing. Nobody is expected to agree with anybody else on anything.
But everybody is expected to give the same consideration to everyone
else's opinions and points of view.

Thanks again.

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20210303/fdd150c6/attachment.htm>