Re: Proposed disposition of comments
Baker
On 16 Apr 2015, at 17:45, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes. That is indeed an inconsistency with the "core
> specification". Speaking informally, I am wondering
> if there is any real controversy here. IMO the clean
> fix would be to simply replace the first paragraph of
> 8.3 by "A flavor shall provide the decoration com, with
> the following propagation rule for library arithmetic operations."
>
> Reading the rules for submission to REVCOM, I note the Sponsor
> can submit the draft to REVCOM (before April 24 for the June
> REVCOM meeting) WHILE a recirculation is in progress, provided
> the 75% approval has already been achieved. Perhaps the
> easy thing to do would be to have another recirculation in
> progress while the materials are submitted to REVCOM.
>
> Please excuse me for not recognizing this option right
> away; I'm new as "Sponsor" chair.
>
> If we do submit for a second recirculation, I will need an
> updated draft from John, along with a "diff" file from
> Christian, as before, and I'll need to go through the
> same submittal process.
>
> It should go smoothly, especially if the issues are resolved
> to everyone's satisfaction and it is easy for REVCOM to see
> that.
As I understand it, you propose
- I provide the latest version and Christian does the diffs.
- You submit this to REVCOM.
- In parallel we vote on changing the first paragraph of 8.3 as above.
If that's allowed, it seems a good way forward.
The latest version is on the SVN as r453.
John