Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:43:48 -0400
Hi, so recall there was an SG19 vote just before Tokyo which did not pass.
I think you participated in that vote too and agreed with that. One of the
reasons was an objection that the terminology was required from a UK
National Body comment (though we were in Expert mode, that NB comment will
resurface if it is not addressed).I can't remember if BGL was also part of
it..
That vote and that comment alone means procedurally we must address that or
it would get voted down again somewhere further down the pipeline (LEWG,
LWG, Plenary). So we cannot exit SG19 unless we get an approval vote.
Of course , the SG can vote to reverse that decision, ignore that comment,
or send each paper in pieces. That would take discussion, and a deliberate
clear vote. I can not do that as chair unilaterally. The SG as a group can
do a lot of things but only by discussion and voting.
But I would not advise that change as the original objection will likely
resurface and without good reason as to why we ignored it, the papers will
get stopped and waste committee time. Does that make sense?
Thanks.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 5:43 PM Andrew Lumsdaine <al75_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Michael — I have a question about the process for the graph
> proposal(s). Is it necessary that they be voted out all at the same time?
> We broke them up so that they could stand on their own or not — would it
> make sense to pipeline the approval process for them? We could put 3126
> and 3127 for a vote by next month, for example.
>
> Best Regards,
> Andrew Lumsdaine
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2024, at 7:08 AM, Michael Wong via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. its unlikely Andrew will attend either so I will NOT ask for
> a room in Poland as of right now unless people want to expose this to a
> wider audience and get potential collaborators. If the 2 papers are
> stalled, maybe one way to get them going is to get help writing them from
> someone, then the team can review the work.
>
> If we do need a room, it seems afternoon in Europe would coincide with
> early morning in NA.
>
> Thanks to Nevin, here is a date correction:
> For Graph to have any chance to exit in SG19 to enter LEWG, the 2 missing
> papers must be ready for review at least 2-3 months before May 2025 (Sofia
> meeting) in SG19 to exit SG19 in May 2025. If we don't make that, then it
> will have to move forward to exit SG19 on Oct 2025 to be ready for Kona.
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:59 AM Phil Ratzloff <Phil.Ratzloff_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> I will NOT be attending the Poland meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* SG19 <sg19-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Michael Wong
>> via SG19
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2024 8:32 PM
>> *To:* sg19_at_[hidden]
>> *Cc:* Michael Wong <fraggamuffin_at_[hidden]>
>> *Subject:* [isocpp-sg19] SG19 in Poland Nov 22
>>
>>
>>
>> *EXTERNAL*
>>
>> Hi all, who will be in the Wroclaw Poland F2F? If no one will be there
>> F2F, I might not hold a meeting there as the time zone could be awkward (3
>> am-noon ET for Europe time), and go back to holding a call on the
>> previous week in our natural time slot on Nov 14 (even though it might be
>> DST hell). I need to know this to see if I need to book a room.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now for some Roadmap thoughts:)
>>
>>
>>
>> In last week's call, we had pretty much decided that the graph paper
>> won't make the Poland meeting as there are still 2 missing papers
>> (terminology and BGL comparison). Are these 2 papers both necessary? I
>> believe the terminology paper is needed. What about BGL?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We have reset our goal to aim for Sofia in June 2025 or Kona in Nov 2025
>> because the Austria Feb 2025 meeting is too close after the Poland meeting
>> with a big holiday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graph will clearly now not make C++26, and we must retarget for C++29.
>>
>>
>>
>> For Graph to have any chance to exit in SG19 to enter LEWG, the 2 missing
>> papers must be ready for review at least 2-3 months before May 2025 (Sofia
>> meeting) in SG19 to exit SG19 in May 2015. If we don't make that, then it
>> will have to move forward to exit SG19 on Oct 2015 to be ready for Kona.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you. Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/*isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings___.YzJ1OnNhc2luc3RpdHV0ZTpjOm86YWEyODg2OTAyZmU5NTA0OTRjZmM5ZmM1YmE1ODliN2I6NzplNmY0OmFmZjU2ZjU2NzgzZTM0MjRjMzU1NjdmYmVkZTdjYWE2MmQzNDRiNzZmZmYxYzU3MzczNTkzMjU0Nzc2YWMxY2Q6aDpUOk4__;Lw!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!hchLxFX992EL6Efa-KA-j-LE3VYodOrAsY2DU23V7EvHWJMgcA_Ldi5U7i_9ZFtWbzE90vlP7l8aRmk$>
>>
> --
> SG19 mailing list
> SG19_at_[hidden]
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!hchLxFX992EL6Efa-KA-j-LE3VYodOrAsY2DU23V7EvHWJMgcA_Ldi5U7i_9ZFtWbzE90vlPwSrQJGA$
>
>
>
I think you participated in that vote too and agreed with that. One of the
reasons was an objection that the terminology was required from a UK
National Body comment (though we were in Expert mode, that NB comment will
resurface if it is not addressed).I can't remember if BGL was also part of
it..
That vote and that comment alone means procedurally we must address that or
it would get voted down again somewhere further down the pipeline (LEWG,
LWG, Plenary). So we cannot exit SG19 unless we get an approval vote.
Of course , the SG can vote to reverse that decision, ignore that comment,
or send each paper in pieces. That would take discussion, and a deliberate
clear vote. I can not do that as chair unilaterally. The SG as a group can
do a lot of things but only by discussion and voting.
But I would not advise that change as the original objection will likely
resurface and without good reason as to why we ignored it, the papers will
get stopped and waste committee time. Does that make sense?
Thanks.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 5:43 PM Andrew Lumsdaine <al75_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Michael — I have a question about the process for the graph
> proposal(s). Is it necessary that they be voted out all at the same time?
> We broke them up so that they could stand on their own or not — would it
> make sense to pipeline the approval process for them? We could put 3126
> and 3127 for a vote by next month, for example.
>
> Best Regards,
> Andrew Lumsdaine
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2024, at 7:08 AM, Michael Wong via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. its unlikely Andrew will attend either so I will NOT ask for
> a room in Poland as of right now unless people want to expose this to a
> wider audience and get potential collaborators. If the 2 papers are
> stalled, maybe one way to get them going is to get help writing them from
> someone, then the team can review the work.
>
> If we do need a room, it seems afternoon in Europe would coincide with
> early morning in NA.
>
> Thanks to Nevin, here is a date correction:
> For Graph to have any chance to exit in SG19 to enter LEWG, the 2 missing
> papers must be ready for review at least 2-3 months before May 2025 (Sofia
> meeting) in SG19 to exit SG19 in May 2025. If we don't make that, then it
> will have to move forward to exit SG19 on Oct 2025 to be ready for Kona.
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:59 AM Phil Ratzloff <Phil.Ratzloff_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> I will NOT be attending the Poland meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* SG19 <sg19-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Michael Wong
>> via SG19
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2024 8:32 PM
>> *To:* sg19_at_[hidden]
>> *Cc:* Michael Wong <fraggamuffin_at_[hidden]>
>> *Subject:* [isocpp-sg19] SG19 in Poland Nov 22
>>
>>
>>
>> *EXTERNAL*
>>
>> Hi all, who will be in the Wroclaw Poland F2F? If no one will be there
>> F2F, I might not hold a meeting there as the time zone could be awkward (3
>> am-noon ET for Europe time), and go back to holding a call on the
>> previous week in our natural time slot on Nov 14 (even though it might be
>> DST hell). I need to know this to see if I need to book a room.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now for some Roadmap thoughts:)
>>
>>
>>
>> In last week's call, we had pretty much decided that the graph paper
>> won't make the Poland meeting as there are still 2 missing papers
>> (terminology and BGL comparison). Are these 2 papers both necessary? I
>> believe the terminology paper is needed. What about BGL?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We have reset our goal to aim for Sofia in June 2025 or Kona in Nov 2025
>> because the Austria Feb 2025 meeting is too close after the Poland meeting
>> with a big holiday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graph will clearly now not make C++26, and we must retarget for C++29.
>>
>>
>>
>> For Graph to have any chance to exit in SG19 to enter LEWG, the 2 missing
>> papers must be ready for review at least 2-3 months before May 2025 (Sofia
>> meeting) in SG19 to exit SG19 in May 2015. If we don't make that, then it
>> will have to move forward to exit SG19 on Oct 2015 to be ready for Kona.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you. Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/*isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings___.YzJ1OnNhc2luc3RpdHV0ZTpjOm86YWEyODg2OTAyZmU5NTA0OTRjZmM5ZmM1YmE1ODliN2I6NzplNmY0OmFmZjU2ZjU2NzgzZTM0MjRjMzU1NjdmYmVkZTdjYWE2MmQzNDRiNzZmZmYxYzU3MzczNTkzMjU0Nzc2YWMxY2Q6aDpUOk4__;Lw!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!hchLxFX992EL6Efa-KA-j-LE3VYodOrAsY2DU23V7EvHWJMgcA_Ldi5U7i_9ZFtWbzE90vlP7l8aRmk$>
>>
> --
> SG19 mailing list
> SG19_at_[hidden]
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!hchLxFX992EL6Efa-KA-j-LE3VYodOrAsY2DU23V7EvHWJMgcA_Ldi5U7i_9ZFtWbzE90vlPwSrQJGA$
>
>
>
Received on 2024-10-16 23:44:05