As a general rule, we do try to work in ascending order through the open issues on Mantis. However, there are some exceptions to this:
- Sometimes issues are left pending until later, waiting for some action item to be resolved. When we get a response to that action, we will return to that issue. - If there is someone new on the call, he or she can always ask for a specific item to be addressed first. - An issue that has been the topic of intense debate on this list may be discussed when the debate is winding down (and the issue is still fresh in our minds). - An issue recently resolved but reopened by discussion either on this list or by a new comment submitted. - Discussing one issue may lead us to submit new issues on related subjects that might then be taken out of order, or might lead us to revisit a previous issue So, this week we worked through issues 1074, 1075 and started on 1076. Next week we will pick up on 1076 (cancelation points), and if we resolve that, the next most likely issue is 1077 (Recommend support for wide-character regcomp and regexec and/or specify multi-byte behavior) [which is likely to be either a long discussion, or will be deferred, so we will go on to 1078]. You can also request one of the three Organizational Representatives (me < nickstough...@gmail.com>, Don Cragun <dcra...@sonic.net>, or Martin Rehak) to bring any given issue to the front of the queue, and it will be discussed at the next opportunity. -- Nick Stoughton, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 OR P.S. One point to note for submitters of issues such as 1077 is that the more detail there is in the desired action, the more likely we will be able to resolve the issue to the submitter's satisfaction. The following text is from SD6, the document describing the Austin Group procedures: The Austin Group is not a development body for new material apart from integration issues arising from the merger of the approved standards that were the Base documents into the revision. The Austin Group expects to take a similar approach for a future revision. Thus if a defect report raises the possibility of new interfaces for inclusion, the standard response will be that it is out of scope for either a TC or Interpretation, and that if the new material were to meet the some criteria it may be considered for inclusion in a future revision subject to the agreed scope determined at that time, although there is no guarantee. The recommended criteria for development of new interfaces to enable them to be considered for inclusion in a future revision are as follows: 1.There must be a written specification that has undergone a formal consensus based approval process and is suitable for inclusion. Parties interested in submitting new work items through one of the three organizations within the Austin Group (The Open Group, IEEE, ISO/IEC) should contact the appropriate Organizational Representative for further information and advice on how each organization handles new work items. Submissions from other organizations will also be considered. Items 2 through 4 below apply to all submissions regardless of origin. 2.There must be an implementation, preferably a reference implementation. 3.The specification must be "sponsored" by one of three organizations (The Open Group, IEEE, ISO/IEC) within the Austin Group, i.e. they would support and champion its inclusion. 4.Submitters must provide an outline plan of the editing instructions to merge the document with the Austin Group specifications, and assistance to the Austin Group editors as required to complete the merger. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: > Is there any possibility that in either the regular > "Austin Group teleconference..." > e-mail, or in some other message sent about the > same time (at laeast a few days before the call) we > could be informed which bug/issue numbers are > planned to be discussed next ? > > That way, people like me, who are very unlikely to > ever participate in the phone calls, can perhaps > make comments before the issue seems to have been > decided, rather than after. > > I don't expect a high degree of accuracy, the minutes > already note an issue that is currently under discussion > and to be continued in the next call when there is one - just > to know which few issues are planned to be tackled next (they > do not always seem to be in numeric order - particularly for the > ones left "pending until later") - whether those listed are actually > reached during the next phone call, or not, doesn't really matter. > > Simply "everything not currently resolved" is too much to look > at in one day/week/month/... so narrowing the list to the issues > likely to be discussed in the next week, or two or three, would > help me at least. > > kre > > ps: It might be good, just once, for the minutes to actually > include a list of all of the outstanding actions, rather than > just referring back to a set of minutes from more than 2 > years ago - one hopes that at least some of whatever was > left pending back then has been resolved by now! > If nothing else, just seeing all the "pending" issues listed > once might stir up a little action to make progress on some > of them (how many are there?) > >
