<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Rolf,<br> All changes that go into the standard must be voted on by the whole forum. For ticket 0 items, this can be at the final chapter vote - it is really up to the chapter committees. Personally, as responsible for the ptp chapter, I plan to bring this forward one or two meetings before the final vote, so that there can be discussion by those that care a lot about detailed wording. Actually, I am going to be removing the ptp chapter ticket-0 items from the agenda for this meeting, and putting these into a single ticket, most likely to be handled at the following meeting - have been on foreign travel for 3 weeks, so have not had much time to work on this over the last month. I do not know if other chapter authors have similar intents.<br><br> As for how each committee handles this, this is really up to them - we do not need to micro-manage how each group wants to operate. I have had people over the years (yes years) send me small changes, and plan to pull these together in the near future (not before the meeting next week), and then will send a note out to all the ptp chapter committee members asking for their comments/reviews/....<br><br>Rich<br><br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:32:18 +0100<br>> From: rabenseifner@hlrs.de<br>> To: wgropp@uiuc.edu<br>> CC: mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org<br>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Process for chapter committee handling<br>> <br>> Bill,<br>> <br>> I would like to get your opinion about following process problem:<br>> <br>> http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/standardization_process_3.pdf<br>> describes the two processes for <br>> - "handled by the chapter committee", and<br>> - handled by "formal reading plus two votes".<br>> <br>> The relation of our ticket-system to "formal reading plus two votes"<br>> is self explaining.<br>> <br>> The way of ticket-0 (i.e., grammer, type, formatting) changes is also<br>> clear:<br>> - no ticket<br>> - goes directly into approved<br>> - will be read one meeting before chapter vote<br>> (we will search for "ticket0" in the pdf)<br>> - and is voted in by final chapter vote.<br>> <br>> If a ticket-0 content has already a ticket number, the typically<br>> path may be:<br>> - The chapter author takes the obvious content directly into<br>> the approved source trunk as ticket-0,<br>> - He adds a comment to the ticket that it is taken as ticket-0<br>> and already included into the approved trunk,<br>> - and he withdraws the original ticket.<br>> Of course, such a ticket should never been withdrawn <br>> before the ticket content is taken into the approved trunk.<br>> It can be handled also with the method described below for small corrections.<br>> <br>> How are small clarifications handled through our ticket system,<br>> i.e., those clarifications that should keep there ticket number.<br>> <br>> Which is the process for those tickets "handled by the chapter committee"?<br>> The current way of withdrawing and probably forgetting for ever<br>> is not a good process.<br>> <br>> Should we add two additional values for priority:<br>> - instead of Scheduled:<br>> -- Scheduled (for forum)<br>> -- Scheduled (for chapter committee)<br>> - instead of Passed<br>> -- Passed by forum<br>> -- Passed by chapter committee <br>> <br>> Then we have a clear process with two possibilities<br>> - Scheduled (for forum)<br>> - Had 1st reading<br>> - Had 1st vote<br>> - Passed by forum <br>> or<br>> - Scheduled (for chapter committee)<br>> - Passed by chapter committee <br>> <br>> Our rules at <br>> http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/standardization_process_3.pdf<br>> require that all changes not yet voted are read before the<br>> meeting with the chapter-vote:<br>> "All the minor and medium changes that have not been voted so far."<br>> <br>> Should we mark these tickets that are "handled by the chapter <br>> committee" somehow that we can go through these tickets very simple,<br>> e.g., with 0.275 instead of 275.<br>> Then we need only look for all ticket0 to find ticket0 and ticket0.275.<br>> <br>> I.e., all tickets in status "Passed by chapter committee"<br>> must have ticket 0.nnn numbers in the latex source.<br>> <br>> All other tickets have their original number in the latex source.<br>> <br>> What do you think about?<br>> <br>> Best regards<br>> Rolf<br>> <br>> <br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: "William Gropp" <wgropp@illinois.edu><br>> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org><br>> > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:23:56 PM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Agenda corrections needed - Re: March MPI Forum meeting<br>> ><br>> > 275 is exactly the sort of thing better handled by the chapter<br>> > committee (unintentionally included Complex with types allowed for<br>> > Compare and Swap).<br>> > <br>> > Bill<br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner@hlrs.de<br>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530<br>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832<br>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner<br>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> mpi-forum mailing list<br>> mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org<br>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum<br></div> </div></body>
</html>