I'd like for SG10 to meet Monday, April 6.

The only changes I have made to the document since February were to add
editor notes (yellow) to the rationale section for C++17 indicating
changes for which we intend to recommend no macro; capturing our
justifications for these decisions is particularly important, in my view.
Explicit justification would also be necessary for changes to
recommendations we previously published for C++14.

Meeting specifics:
Monday, April 6, 2015
10:00 am | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) | 2 hrs
http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/features/2015-March/000303.html

Agenda:

There are about a half-dozen entries in the C++17 table where more than one
name has been proposed, or where some other question exists. We need to
reach consensus on all of those. And of course there's no harm in everyone
taking another look at all the other entries, to make sure we have those
right as well.

There are a couple of proposed changes to the recommendations for C++14.
We need to make sure the consensus is that those changes are really
justified.

Then there's the whole question of what we should do about C++11, including
whether we already went too far when SD-6 was revised at the end of the
year. For specifics, see:

https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations#recs.cpp11

The new entries, for which we didn't specifically consider the rationale,
are the underlined ones: range-based for, specific attributes, and
everything in the table from initializer lists on.

--
Clark Nelson            Chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
Intel Corporation       Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
clark.nelson_at_[hidden]  Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language extensions)