Hi Martin, Procedurally, do we have enough time (that is, enough face-to-face meetings) to read a full proposal and get both the 1st vote and the 2nd vote done before the deadline imposed by our intention to release MPI-4.0 at SC20 which requires prior ratification of a release candidate? Note that #83 is not on the agenda for Zurich. The errata procedure only requires one formal vote, which shaves off one face-to-face meeting from the critical path (vs. the full proposal procedure) - although I agree it is a little unclear which version is being corrected. Using errata for new functionality suggests misuse of the “correct a small mistake” procedure as a “short-circuit for a small addition” procedure. OTOH, maybe we should innovate and approve such a “small addition” procedure? Maybe some changes need two formal votes but others only need one? Could we introduce a no-no-vote type of approval-by-acclamation at the end of the formal reading meeting to decide whether the proposal just read is “small” (needs one vote) or not (needs two votes)? Alternatively, perhaps the rules could permit 2nd votes at the start of the release candidate meeting, with the thing-to-be-gone-through-page-by-page being affected by the result(s) of that voting block with a short intermission while the document editor merges the successful pull requests (or a longer intermission if there are any merge conflicts that need fixing)? Cheers, Dan. — Dr Daniel Holmes PhD Architect (HPC Research) [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465 Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088 Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT — The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. — On 29 Aug 2019, at 14:11, Martin Schulz via mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Tony, all, I hope I fully followed this :) Doing an errata item seems a bit backwards to me, as we haven’t published the standard, yet. Also, removing it and then re-adding it with 83 seems odd. What about just removing the two keys that are not needed with 83 through the no/no process? Wouldn’t that be all that is needed? Martin — Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On 29. Aug 2019, at 12:31, Skjellum, Anthony <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, thank you... we will issue an appropriate change to remove these... they are not part of ticket #25 as approved...and so we must issue an erratum on ticket #25. They split off into ticket #83 in March, 2018. We itrerated multiple times on having or not having these info keys as part of ticket #25 and we must have missed removing completely. Such info keys are part of a second viable ticket we that we split out are still working on ... none belong in the standard yet. The first key value is part of ticket 83 as of now... which will get a no no plus vote in December (it had its reading priorly), introducing the first key... since acceptance is anticipated. Only examples for this ticket need to be fixed. Plus now evidently Annex 1.5 :-) too. The second and third key values are currently part of no proposed ticket. They are vestigial. So, our plan is to remove all mention of them with appropriate process and then watch for the passage of 83. :-) I will make sure that no no vote ticket for 83 also includes adding the first key to the Annex 1.5. I will ask Bill Gropp and Martin Schulz for advice on fixing this. They are cc’d. Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD 205-807-4968 On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Joseph Schuchart <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tony, I just rebased my MPI PR to the MPI 4.x branch. Looking at the info keys, I found that there are info keys in Annex A.1.5 that stem from the persistent collectives chapter but the text mentioning them was commented out there (git blame mentions you as the last author of that part). It seems that the info keys in the annex are a relic of this text. The keys in question are: mpi_assert_strict_start_ordering mpi_optimization_goal mpi_reuse_count Are you planning to revive these keys or should they be removed? Best regards, Joseph -- Dipl.-Inf. Joseph Schuchart High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) Nobelstr. 19 D-70569 Stuttgart Tel.: +49(0)711-68565890 Fax: +49(0)711-6856832 E-Mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence