Vote to merge X3J11.1 into X3J11

[Rex Jaeschke]

The topic of folding X3J11.1 into X3J11 was discussed at both the X3J11.1
and X3J11 meetings last week in New York. My report to X3J11.1 was that,
for various reasons, it didn't seem like a good idea. However, Tom Plum
reported that the merging of subgroups into parent TCs is popular now,
aparently as a way of saving on the $300/subgroup international fee. He
said that CBEMA/X3 was not opposed to such mergings and that, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, that the parent TC (in our case X3J11) need not get
(re-)approval to change its charter. That is, no new project proposal is
needed.

In light of this situation, I would like to reopen the merger issue.
However, I do NOT want it to be driven by the urge to save $300/year. Last
week we (J11.1) voted to forward three of our subgroups' reports to J11
for further review. Hopefully, the other four will follow over the next
18+ months. We can shorten the process if we can do the technical work and
review by one committee rather than two.

In NY, we had 10 voting members at the X3J11.1 meeting. Only 2 of these
(Thomas - Apple and Tydeman - IBM) did not attend the X3J11 meeting. We
had 17 voting members at the X3J11 meeting (including a rep from IBM.) If
we were to combine the two committees we could run the J11.1 business in 2
days allowing members who did not wish or could not attend that part of
the meeting, to still fulfill their attendance requirements by attending
the other 3 days.

If a merger were to happen, we should shoot for the start of 1994. That
leaves only 1 more meeting and it is hardly worth changing chairs of
X3J11.1 for that, particularly when you consider that a new J11.1 chair
might not even be confirmed by the December meeting. If interest in
merging, starting in Jan '94, is high, I would offer to pay my $300
International fee for X3J11.1, continue as chair through the end of this
year, and then disband the group once it is merged.

To indicate your interest in this matter please answer the following. If
you are voting member of both committees, vote your position for each:


As an X3J11.1 voting member I vote YES/NO [pick one] to be absorbed by
X3J11.


As an X3J11 voting member I vote YES/NO [pick one] to absorb X3J11.1 into
X3J11.


Consider this an informal letter ballot. Since only voting members would
have an official say, I'd prefer to restrict ``votes'' to that group.
However, if you are participating in either committee and you are not a
voting member of either or both, by all means let me know if a merger
would adversly affect you. If you are not opposed to a merger, I encourage
you to vote Yes rather than abstain. In any event, I will read an
abstention as not being a No vote.

I'd like your input by the close of business of June 15th. At that time,
if the vote is a resounding Yes from both committees, I'll talk further
with X3 to sort out the procedures to get the ball rolling. We'd probably
need a letter ballot of both committees since waiting for the December
meeting would delay things too long.


Rex

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(703) 860-0091  |           Rex Jaeschke              | C and C++ Seminars
rexaaussie.com  |        2051 Swans Neck Way          | and Consulting
                |     Reston, Virginia 22091, USA     | 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
X3J11 member and US International Representative to ISO C (WG14)
Convener of X3J11.1, the Numerical C Extensions Group (NCEG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------