Thanks Brian, My recollection of the last meeting is that opening tickets #129 & #130 was the forum recommendation. I don't recall anyone saying that we can't vote on #46 if there are any amendments in new tickets. However, I do see your point and I will prepare a new proposal that captures tickets #46, #129 and #130 for the next meeting, where we'll get the forum feedback if we want to proceed with the new ticket or ticket #46. (as it does reset the clock and requires some more work from the forum). I am okay with it either way. Thanks, .Erez -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Barrett, Brian W Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:37 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C bindings-implementation No, there was an objection (rightly) to modifying a proposal that had been voted on. I'm saying remove #46, #129, and #130 from consideration, and start an entirely new proposal from day 1 that is complete. Otherwise, we're setting a horrible precedent that it's ok to vote in things that are known to be wrong, because we can just fix them later. In fact, I believe there was suggestion to do exactly that at the last meeting, but you chose to add new proposals instead. Brian On 3/19/09 16:32 , "Erez Haba" <erezh_at_[hidden]> wrote:

Since we already passed first vote, there was an objection to that in the last meeting.

-----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Barrett, Brian W Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:28 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #46: Add const Keyword to the C bindings-implementation

On 3/19/09 16:00 , "Erez Haba" <erezh_at_[hidden]> wrote:

...

As to rushing this in, I'm curious, this ticket is there for over a year; already implemented twice and tested by two different bodies. Is this really rushing it in?

As to the procedural issues. This ticket is one of the first tickets that we had in the system, and of-course as the mpi forum body we did learn a thing or two in that process, unfortunately, first implemented with that ticket. So yes there would be issues. I think that we can resolve these 'issues' but puting dependency on passing this ticket given that we accept the other two corrections to the ticket.

We're not too late to submit a new proposal to 2.2, as I understand it. Why not do the right thing, pull #46, #129, and #130, bundle them into a new proposal, get comments, and remove the procedural issues? I think the hesitancy to do this only adds to my worry about this proposal, and is part of the view people have of "rushing it it".

Brian

-- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories

_______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22

_______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22

-- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22