... and probably clarify in the process document the acceptable forms of implementation, delivery form, and licenses, if applicable. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:47 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposal for the MPI-3 standardization process I must say that I think that keeping the implementation requirement strong is critical at this phase. The current standard is complex and implementation issues are likely to be subtle. I don't think we have been through a single meeting where any one person has been "right" about their remembrance of the details of the standard. If an implementation is such a burden that it is an impediment to getting something in, that raises a lot of questions about whether it should get in. After all, we presumably want implementations to include these features in the foreseeable future, right? That said, I think "unanimous" is probably slight overkill. It would allow a single individual a procedural maneuver to kill (or substantially delay) minor changes to the standard or to a proposal. I also think we will have to look at what qualifies as an "implementation" on a case by case basis. Keith ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham, Richard L. [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:32 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposal for the MPI-3 standardization process I will take this, and what Rolf sent, and add to what we had decided at the meeting. I think the main point of disagreement is on the implementation. There was a very strong sense the an implementation is required before formal action by the forum. However, since this is intended to help the process, and not just create work, the notion was that the forum could decide to bypass this, but it would have to be a unanimous decision. Rich On 12/22/10 12:04 PM, "William Gropp" <[email protected]> wrote: I have taken Rolf's version and further edited it to clarify the language a bit and add the definition of simple majority that we have always used. Bill _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052