[Cfp-interest 1318] Fwd: (SC22WG14.16691) CFP Teleconference - Tuesday, May 21

[Jim Thomas]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Blaine Garst <blaine at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: (SC22WG14.16691) CFP Teleconference - Tuesday, May 21
> Date: May 14, 2019 at 8:57:53 AM PDT
> To: Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: David Keaton <dmk at dmk.com>
> 
> The key observation is that the working group already has its hands full integrating the published C11 changes into C17 derived C2x, and I think the committee’s interest is now primarily in watching Change Requests and their resolutions in some manner.  I championed accepting the working groups recommendations for DRs as being accepted in “Review” status so that outside parties, like Joseph, could get visibility, and that seems to have worked.  That is, rather than taking a DR on first appearance as Open, waiting six months to push it to Review, then another six months before handing it back was a year, and by accepting it in Review status we cut that to six months.  Which was useful.
> 
> Discussion: has the six month process been too fast for other’s outside the “inner circle” of the working group and Joseph?
> 
> The proposal I made at the London meeting was that, by whatever document process you want, the working group maintain the “compendium” in whatever format you want.  All DRs are now “Clarifcation  Requests” which is a broad category that will, in the CFP group, almost always will have suggested Technical Corrigenda.  For my own sanity, and that of readers, I was meticulous to not allow strike-throughs nor colored fonts to signify new additions.  That’s editorial, and up to you.
> 
> My concern is that, well, even a six month somewhat artificial delay isn’t really how you really work - like Jens’ git based C2x document, its easier to just roll in things as you come up with them and be able to go back and undo things that went in too early.  Marking changed text in some “provisional” color might help, so that the working group could also start publishing whatever is left of the 18661 parts, at least in the optional ones, and I have no idea what will happen to part 5 which we rejected entirely IIRC.  The meta point is that any process the committee requires shouldn’t be onerous or against the grain of the actual work process the working group, and particularly you as editor, decide as best.
> 
> Discussion: My view is that the committee needs, and perhaps your working group, MORE EXAMPLES.  This might double or triple the “problem statement” but is essential for anyone new to the TS & Standard who isn’t familiar with these edge cases of computing.
> 
> I’ll do my London homework and have the new CR style for C2x as a draft, and my last CFP compendium as well - all Reviews went to Closed is all.  For C2x I will be using the N-doc of the editor’s working draft to mark first appearance succinctly.
> 
> Discussion: what numbered format, with Review status implicit, should be presented at WG14 meetings as a summary of the working group’s Clarification Requests. I have some C based tooling I would be happy to share, but it still requires some nasty raw html copy-pasting of your html generated from the Word originals. In my opinion, start over with some style Word can manage would be ideal, so it literally is copy-paste in the same representation space.
> 
> Discussion:  In my view, you are now also starting to roll in IEEE work beyond 18661, I and the committee need to understand what that means for C2x once we get there.  So far, its opporutnistic, and better some than not any is the thinking, even if not all of the new work is finished in time.
> 
> Blaine

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20190520/08ff1c51/attachment.html