From rjmartin@eng.Sun.COM Thu Dec 11 18:00:33 1997 Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08096 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:00:31 +0100 Received: from sunmail1.Sun.COM ([129.145.1.2]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id IAA24999; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:58:10 -0800 Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com by sunmail1.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id IAA27233; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:57:30 -0800 Received: from rjmartin.eng.sun.com (dhmpk17-088-012 [129.146.88.242]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.8.8+Sun.Beta.4/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01660; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:57:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971211085353.0070e608@jurassic.eng.sun.com> X-Sender: rjmartin@jurassic.eng.sun.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:54:02 -0800 To: "D. J. Blackwood" , sc22wg15@dkuug.dk From: Roger Martin Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.1165) WG15 Ad hoc Meeting - January 11-12, 1998 Cc: Lowell Johnson <3lgj@rsvl.unisys.com>, Roger Martin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave, You are correct. Lowell inadvertently used an old agenda when he sent it out and Jim just copied it. It definitely is on the PASC/SEC agenda. The reason the PASC/SEC meeting is being held on Monday evening for four hours is specifically to address the future of POSIX issues. Two ad hoc groups formed in October are tasked with submitting their reports no later than Monday and I expect to be able to consider them as part of the WG15 ad hoc. In addition, I intend (with the concurrence WG15 members) to have the WG15 ad hoc be an open meeting with any and all PASC experts invited to participate. Basically, I expect this to be THE major topic of discussion for all of us in Ft Lauderdale. ...roger At 09:05 PM 12/10/1997 EST, you wrote: >> ---------------------------------- >> Meeting Announcement >> ---------------------------------- >> >> An ad hoc meeting of WG15 will be held in conjunction with the >> next IEEE/PASC meetings. The purpose of this meeting will be to >> discuss PASC/WG15 future issues which are being raised and debated >> in PASC/SEC. This ad hoc meeting was authorized by SC22/WG15 in >> WG15 Resolution 97-387 >> >> ****************************************************************** >> 97-387 WG15 Ad hoc meeting >> >> Whereas WG15 has expressed an interest in the discussions presently >> occurring within IEEE PASC concerning the future direction of POSIX, >> and >> >> whereas IEEE PASC is holding the next meeting the week of 12-16 Jan >> 1998 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL; >> >> therefore WG15 authorises Mr. Roger Martin to convene an ad hoc >> meeting, 11-12 Jan 1998 in conjunction with IEEE PASC, to discuss >> the future direction of POSIX and the impact on current and future >> WG15 work items. >> ******************************************************************** >> >> MEETING TIMES: The meeting will convene at 1:00 pm on Sunday, >> January 11, 1998 and will end no later than >> 4:00 pm, Monday January 12, 1998. >> >> The exact adjourn time will be determined at the >> meeting based on the will of the attendees. >> >> LOCATION: Ft. Lauderdale, FL (meeting rooms to be announced) >> >> >> =================================================================== >> =================================================================== >> >> The debate over these issues has been initiated on IEEE/PASC (-sec >> and -gen) mailing lists. For those WG15 members who do not receive >> those mailings, I will attempt to filter them and pass the summarized >> discussions on to the WG15 list on a regular basis. >> >> Please let me know if you plan to attend this ad hoc meeting so >> an appropriate size room can be reserved. >> >> ...roger martin > >I intend to be there however I note that PASC has no equivalent item on >it's agenda for the same time period. I had thought that this meeting >was to be held "in conjunction with" PASC and not merely be co-located >in the same hotel during the same week. I see little value in WG15 and >PASC debating the same issues independantly of each other and >potentially reaching very different conclusions. The intention was to >provide WG15 members with an opportunity to influence PASC with respect >to this issue. Am I missing something here? > >Dave >