From Miles.Ellis@educational-technology-resources-centre.oxford.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 15:42:20 1995 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA29110 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 24 Jul 1995 15:39:53 +0200 Received: from vax.ox.ac.uk by oxmail2.ox.ac.uk. with SMTP (PP) id <12578-0@oxmail2.ox.ac.uk.>; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:39:57 +0100 Received: from 163.1.85.1 by vax.ox.ac.uk (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:39:19 +0100 X-Sender: MELLIS@vax.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:42:20 +0100 To: janshep From: Miles.Ellis@educational-technology-resources-centre.oxford.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) Subject: Re: (x3j3.1995-299) re: Parameterized Derived Types & OOF Cc: sc22wg5 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 > >"Technical reports, adoption of which are not are subject to X3J3 review," > >I'd like to know what review process do technical reports go through? >Is there some type of public review before a technical report can be >"published"? > >I suspect this was discussed at the Maui meeting, but as I (and others) >were not there... > Probably you haven't had time to read all your email yet, but you will find the answer in my message announcing the result of the ballot on subdivision (SC22WG5.838). The bottom line is that a Technical Report has a similar standing to an International Standard and requires the same levels of review and approval. I don't know where the idea that using TRs would cut out some of the review processes arose from since it was always totally clear in Tokyo that a TR goes through exactly the same number and type of international ballots as does a Standard, and presumably Jerry reported that fact at the Maui meeting. Quite apart from the fact that the procedures agreed by WG5 specifically require each TR development body to have at least one member from the Primary Development Body (ie X3J3 at present), to ensure proper coordination and review, X3J3 presumably determines the US vote at both the PDTR (cf CD for a standard) and DTR (cf DIS) ballot stages. So to say that the TRs are not subject to X3J3 review is only true in the sense that WG5 need not specifically ask X3J3 to review them in addition to their review via membership of the development bodies, via membership of WG5 and the consequent balloting for approval of the draft TRs, and via the determination of the US position on two separate ballots! Oh yes - and notwithstanding the declared intent of WG5 to incorporate the content of the TRs in the next revision of Fortran, that incorporation will also be subject to all the usual reviews and ballots! I hope that this clarifies matters - and eases any worries you may have had. Miles ======================================================================= Dr Miles Ellis CCCCCCCCCCC Director: Educational Technology Resources Centre C C University of Oxford, 37-41 Wellington Square C E Oxford OX1 2JF, ENGLAND C T C R Telephone: +44 1865 270528 Fax: +44 1865 270527 C C Email: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk CCCCCCCCCCC =======================================================================