[Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140

[William Gropp]

This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a  
chance to take a second look at the issues.  I'll note that the 17-10  
(counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a majority  
vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling argument for  
each feature.

The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the  
second vote.  However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional  
requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we didn't  
define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), but there  
is a strong argument that limited scope of change would require at  
least a majority of implementations to agree that the change is minor.

Bill

On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote:

> Hi all, I’m not really sure how to respond to this email.  I will  
> just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with  
> the following results.
>
> 4.     Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote:
> YES:
> 17
> NO:
> 4
> ABSTAIN:
> 6
> MISSED:
> 0
> Result:
> Ballot passed
>
> http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php
>
> since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor  
> correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created  
> ticket #140.
>
> I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed  
> in the forum meeting(s).
>
> Thanks,
> .Erez
>
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Cc: mpi-22 at lists.mpi-forum.org
> Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
>
> All -
>
> The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI  
> implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that  
> proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number  
> of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate.
>
> In particular, the proposal:
>
> - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the  
> support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus  
> has not been reached.
> - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change  
> and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process.
> - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to  
> solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application.
> - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for  
> implementation or application, but may constrain future  
> implementation opportunities.
>
> Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to  
> the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact.
>
> Thank you,
>
> - Cisco: Jeff Squires
> - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood
> - Sandia: Brian Barrett
> - IBM: Richard Treumann
> - QLogic: Avneesh Pant
> - UTenn: George Bosilca
> - HP: David George Solt
> - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel
> - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray
> - ORNL: Richard Graham
> - Sun: Terry Dontje
> - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff
>
>
>
> Dick Treumann - MPI Team
> IBM Systems & Technology Group
> Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
>
> <ATT00001.txt>

William Gropp
Deputy Director for Research
Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20090527/db250ed3/attachment-0001.html>