With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don’t see any point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this ticket in the next mpi forum meeting.

 

Thanks,

.Erez

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM
To: MPI 2.2
Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140

 

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

 

 

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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Cc: [email protected]
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