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