<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">

<style type="text/css">

body { color: #000000; background-color: #FFFFFF; }
del { text-decoration: line-through; color: #8B0040; }
ins { text-decoration: underline; color: #005100; }

p.example { margin-left: 2em; }
pre.example { margin-left: 2em; }
div.example { margin-left: 2em; }

code.extract { background-color: #F5F6A2; }
pre.extract { margin-left: 2em; background-color: #F5F6A2;
  border: 1px solid #E1E28E; }

p.function { }
.attribute { margin-left: 2em; }
.attribute dt { float: left; font-style: italic;
  padding-right: 1ex; }
.attribute dd { margin-left: 0em; }

blockquote.std { color: #000000; background-color: #F1F1F1;
  border: 1px solid #D1D1D1;
  padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em; }
blockquote.stddel { text-decoration: line-through;
  color: #000000; background-color: #FFEBFF;
  border: 1px solid #ECD7EC;
  padding-left: 0.5empadding-right: 0.5em; ; }

blockquote.stdins { text-decoration: underline;
  color: #000000; background-color: #C8FFC8;
  border: 1px solid #B3EBB3; padding: 0.5em; }

table { border: 1px solid black; border-spacing: 0px;
  margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
th { text-align: left; vertical-align: top;
  padding-left: 0.8em; border: none; }
td { text-align: left; vertical-align: top;
  padding-left: 0.8em; border: none; }

</style>

<title>WG21 2014-06-06 Telecon Minutes</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>WG21 2014-06-06 Telecon Minutes</h1>

<p>
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 N4052 - 2014-06-10
</p>

<address>
Ville Voutilainen, ville.voutilainen@gmail.com
</address>

<p>
<pre>
Teleconference information:

  Date:     2014-06-06

  Time:     8:00am N.Am. Pacific Time

  Duration: 2 hours
</pre>
</p>

<h2><a name="Opening">1. Opening and introductions</a></h2>

<p>
Sutter called the meeting to order 8:10 Pacific Time.
</p>

<h3><a name="Roll call">1.1 Roll call of participants</a></h3>

<p>
In attendance were:
</p>

<ul>
<li>Herb Sutter (Convener)</li>
<li>Ville Voutilainen (Finland)</li>
<li>Walter E. Brown (US)</li>
<li>Hans Boehm (US)</li>
<li>Detlef Vollman (Switzerland)</li>
<li>Aaron Ballman (US)</li>
<li>Gabriel Dos Reis (US)</li>
<li>William M. Miller (US)</li>
<li>Marshall Clow (US)</li>
<li>Michael Wong (Canada)</li>
<li>Douglas Gregor (US)</li>
<li>Richard Smith (US)</li>
<li>Lawrence Crowl (US)</li>
<li>Alisdair Meredith (US)</li>
<li>Lois Goldthwaite (UK)</li>
<li>Nevin Liber (US)</li>
<li>Beman Dawes (US)</li>
<li>Stephen D. Clamage (US)</li>
<li>Jan Christiaan van Winkel (Netherlands)</li>
<li>Chandler Carruth (US)</li>
<li>Keld Simonsen (Norway)</li>
<li>Clark Nelson (US)</li>
<li>Thomas Plum (US)</li>
</ul>

<h3><a name="Agenda">1.2 Adopt agenda</a></h3>

<p>
The agenda <a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2014/n3992.htm">N3992</a> was adopted by unanimous consent.
</p>

<h3><a name="Minutes">1.3 Approve minutes from previous meeting</a></h3>

<p>
The minutes in <a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2014/n3900.pdf">N3900</a> were adopted by unanimous consent.
</p>


<h3><a name="Action items">1.4 Review action items from previous meeting</a></h3>

<p>
There were no action items. Sutter to make a note to include the link
to previous minutes in the agenda.
</p>

<h3><a name="Liaisons">1.5 Review of project editor and liaison assignments</a></h3>

<p>
Sutter suggested looking at <a href="http://www.isocpp.org/std/status">isocpp.org/std/status</a> for the current editor assignments. Sutter also mentioned that the business plan and convener's report is coming out in June.
</p>

<h2><a name="Status">2. Status, liaison and action item reports</a></h2>

<h3><a name="Subgroups">2.1 Subgroup status reports (CWG, LWG, EWG, LEWG)</a></h3>

<h4><a name="CWG">Miller on CWG status</a></h4>

<p>
Miller reported that there are 66 new Core issues, and 7 pulled from ready to
review. He also pointed out that there's no longer a separate protected 
version in mailings but the committee version is on the Rapperwil meeting wiki.
</p>
<p>
Since there's an ongoing ballot, Core hasn't been doing drafting reviews
between meetings, and will have no motions in Rapperswil. Core did arrange
a drafting review teleconference for the Transactional Memory wording
by Maurer.
</p>
<p>
Miller reported that Core has no unusual plans, plan is to
do Core issue processing and TS review as needed in Rapperswil. 
Concepts wording review may appear on the agenda. Concepts lite was 
already wording-reviewed in Issaquah, but there haven't been any
further reviews and no teleconferences between meetings.
Sutter reminded that while the main standard Working Draft will not be 
modified by any motions in Rapperswil, everything else is fair game and 
business as usual.
</p>

<h4><a name="LWG">Meredith on LWG status</a></h4>

<p>
LWG plans to continue Filesystem TS ballot resolution and
to handle any issues with the Fundamentals TS.
The plan is to get the Fundamentals TS out for a PDTS ballot from Rapperswil.
</p>
<p>
Majority of incoming papers are expected to go to LEWG first, but
there have been some LWG papers incoming. Meredith requested people
to participate in the tentative voting for the Filesystem TS issues. 
The plan is to get the Filesystem TS to the DTS balloting step.
</p>
<p>
Clow pointed out that there are some LEWG/LWG issues
that should be clarified direction-wise. Meredith said
issues will be processed as usual, but not put beyond Ready status.
Sutter proposed starting the meeting with a triage.
</p>

<h4><a name="EWG">Voutilainen on EWG status</a></h4>

<p>
Voutilainen reported that there are 86 open EWG issues, and a dozen
new papers in the pre-meeting mailing, and four papers that are new
revisions of previous proposals.
</p>
<p>
Voutilainen explained that the large amount of open issues is caused
by the EWG issue list tracking Core issues with Extension status,
and expected the agenda to consist of incoming papers and issue
processing, in addition to TS discussions including at least the
Arrays TS and potentially Concepts.
</p>

<h4><a name="LEWG">Yasskin on LEWG status</a></h4>

<p>
Yasskin said there are 24 topics to discussed, based on the
issue count in LEWG Bugzilla. He said that these are mostly TS material,
and plans to perform aggressive triaging. He also mentioned the plan
to have email threads on the incoming papers on the LEWG reflector.
</p>
<p>
The plan is to get the Fundamentals TS out for ballot, and review
papers incoming for Fundamentals TS v2.
</p>

<h3><a name="Liaison">2.2 Liaison reports</a></h3>

<h3><a name="Study Groups">2.2.1 Study Group reports</a></h3>

<p>
Sutter pointed to the <a href="http://www.isocpp.org/std/status">isocpp.org status tracking page</a>. It's not
official, but it is indicative. 5 TS documents are planned to go out for PDTS
ballot, 1 for DTS ballot. 
</p>

<h4><a name="SG3">Dawes on SG3, Filesystem</a></h4>
<p>
Dawes said he doesn't see any reason not be ready to ship
for DTS ballot, and said that the remaining issues are not contentious.
There are 15 issues to be voted on the reflector for Tentatively Ready,
and the details are in the published issue lists. Dawes pointed out
that a new Microsoft VS CTP is now out with filesystem v3, which
is basically the TS, so there are now two implementations of the TS
available.
</p>

<h4><a name="Arrays">Crowl on the Arrays TS</a></h4>
<p>
Crowl reported that the Arrays TS has a document and some papers, but
what's missing is consensus that the approach is right.
Crowl reported that there haven't been changes to the core wording,
and thought that there's no need for a review. Miller said
there are some core issues related to the wording. Sutter
reminded that new proposals need to go through CWG/LWG wording review.
</p>
<p>
Meredith expressed doubt that Arrays is ready after Rapperswil,
and said LEWG apparently wants to add new functionality to
the TS, and there are some open issues. Meredith estimated
that Urbana is a more likely target. Sutter requested Crowl
to coordinate with Meredith and Yasskin, and suggested
that to be done early in the meeting. Sutter warned against delaying TSes to 
'add one more feature' if the feature could really wait until TS v2, so as to 
avoid the antipattern that contributed to delaying C++0x for years, and 
made the remark that increasing cohesion is ok. 
</p>

<h4><a name="SG1">Boehm on SG1, Concurrency TS and Parallelism TS</a></h4>
<p>
Boehm said there's 16 proposals for the Concurrency TS and 3 for
the Parallelism TS. He has hopes that the Parallelism TS can be made 
ready for PDTS ballot, but mentioned that there's no working draft currently.
</p>
<p>
Boehm reported that there's a lot of churn in the Concurrency
TS. He expects to set a cut-off point for TS features, but explained
that there's a lot of uncertainty about what the initial content will
be. Meredith said there are some doubts
about the state of Parallelism and the ability to ship a PDTS.
Boehm said Parallelism gets higher priority. 
</p>
<p>
Vollman asked about
issues against the TSes. Sutter said that in general there should
be an issue list for all the documents, and recommended asking
the project editors. Sutter said he'll take an action to try
and ensure that all documents have issue lists of some form. 
Meredith expressed desire to have a list that can be voted on, 
instead of a changing document. Carruth said the bugzilla
list has the sufficient capability to do that, and works
as a basis for an N-paper if need be. Meredith clarified that
he prefers seeing a paper that has the exact wording that
is voted on.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG5">Wong on SG5, Transactional Memory</a></h4>
<p>
Wong summarized the wording review teleconference, there was 6-7 people, no
large issues, planning a second review in Core in Rapperswil.
Wong thinks the wording is in good shape for a new Working Draft. 
Wong expects full TS to be available before Urbana, and the PDTS ballot 
to go out from Urbana.
</p>
<p>
Wong said SG5 is continuing with library facilities, like std::list, and requested LWG review.
Some language issues such as optimizations are still being processed. 
Meredith 
asked what the scope of the TS is, and expressed concern about schedule
if library parts are included. Wong said he expects std::list
to be included in the TS. Meredith explained that the concern
is the complexity of the library changes. Wong said the scope
is limited in order to keep it maintainable, and the plan
is to incrementally add library components to future TSes.
</p>
<p>
Wong explained that library components like string and shared_ptr
have challenges that take time to deal with. Wong reported he's
working with library vendors, and says there's possible
compiler implementation work for clang coming up. Meredith
and Wong agreed that there needs to be a discussion about
the proper scope of the initial and future content of the TS.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG8">Sutter on SG8, Concepts</a></h4>
<p>
Sutter summarized the status of concepts, and said there's been 
no wording reviews between meetings, that the wording
will be adopted as an initial working paper, and that it's unknown 
whether it's going to be ready for PDTS ballot. Sutter will check the status. 
Miller said he can schedule wording review if needed.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG2">Gregor on SG2, Modules</a></h4>
<p>
Gregor reported that there's one design paper to discuss, and that SG2
plans to meet. Clow said that there's
been some recent (clang) implementation work ongoing, Suttern recommended 
contacting the vendors offline for status updates.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG4">Sutter on SG4, Networking</a></h4>
<p>Sutter summarized that there's been some incoming papers
for SG4, but otherwise the status is unclear.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG6">Crowl on SG6, Numerics</a></h4>
<p>Crowl reported that there's one new proposal and one revision of a previous
propsal, but no plan to meet, since principals (incl. Crowl himself) won't be present, and SG6 will resume in Urbana.
</p>
<p>
Crowl said Arrays can progress because it's mostly Evolution. Crowl said
he tries to be available for communication. Crowl said there's
going to be a floating point presentation that's going to target
Evolution. Voutilainen said he can help with getting that on the
EWG agenda.
</p> 
<p>Wong asked where Decimal Floating point lands in the
C++ ecosystem. Sutter said there's a separate standard that is
done and is not active. Meredith said there's an update to that,
and there have been requests to get those updates on the agenda.
Sutter suggested that if a study group is unavailable, the
Evolution groups could be used instead. <a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2014/n3871.html">N3871</a> is likely to
be put on the agenda, Meredith thinks it's a pure library
extension, Crowl to coordinate with Yasskin on that.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG7">Carruth on SG7, Reflection</a></h4>
<p>
Carruth reported that there are incoming papers, and is planning for 
an evening session. One paper almost ready for (L)EWG review, going to
prioritize, potential plans for initial TS content. The remainder
of the agenda is to review papers and provide feedback to authors. 
</p>

<h4><a name="SG9">Clow on SG9, Ranges</a></h4>
<p>
Clow reported that there are no papers for Rapperswil. Clow said he plans
to encourage people to write papers, and Carruth reported that
Niebler has a paper for Urbana and wants to be present for
the paper, but can't be in Rapperswil.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG10">Nelson on SG10, Feature test</a></h4>
<p>
Nelson said there's a new paper, and there's also a proposal for has_attribute, 
says there's a need for SG10/EWG/LEWG cooperation.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG11">Sutter on SG11, Databases</a></h4>
<p>
Sutter reported that SG11 is inactive, there are some database papers, 
which are for the time being going to LEWG.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG12">Dos Reis on SG12, Undefined and Unspecified Behavior</a></h4>
<p>
Dos Reis reported there are two papers dealing with UB in preprocessor, planning to have an evening session in Rapperswil.
</p>

<h4><a name="SG13">Sutter on SG13, I/O</a></h4>
<p>
Sutter reported that there's an updated paper, presentation will be done 
in a session of some kind.
</p>

<h3><a name="SC22">2.2.2 SC22 report</a></h3>

<p>Sutter summarized the JTC1 directives changes: there are no longer 
NB delegations, but individual experts only. No heads of delegation, 
changing voting to every individual in
the room who is in the global directory. Sutter explained
that he still plans to query the NBs separately for any
major objections as a sanity check.
</p>
<p>van Winkel asked how Sutter would know which NB the experts represent. 
Sutter explained that the global directory designates the NB for every
individual expert. Sutter said
he's not sure what happens if an individual is an expert
of multiple NBs. Wong said it's possible to be just one NB at the time
Global Directory -wise.
</p>
<p>Wong requested an explanation of the
motivation of this change. Sutter said these changes come
from the JTC1 level from the national bodies, and the procedural
change comes from there. Plum said that JTC1 has worked differently
from ISO previously. Goldthwaite speculated that the success of WG21
may be a reason for these changes and the increased involvement
of JTC1/SC22 in the work of the Working Groups.
</p>
<p>Vollman said he's in the ISO
directory as an expert member of the Swiss NB, but not necessarily
as a member of WG21. Crowl asked how to get into that directory,
Sutter recommended talking to Hedquist about anything related
to the US NB. Voutilainen concurred Wong's
view. Sutter said we'll still have PL22.16 and WG21 meetings
at the same time, but we don't need to have PL22.16 votes separately,
unless there's some PL22.16-specific business ongoing.
</p>
<p>
Simonsen said this shouldn't practically change anything, and
suggested that the convener is free to ask NB individuals for
guidance about what the NB is likely to think.
</p>
<p>
Wong reported that his constituents are worried about the possibility of
being able to load up the room with a large number of people
voting for a certain matter. Sutter said consensus has always
been taken into account in addition to numerical count, and
that NB input will still be queried for. Carruth said he
doesn't think a single company hypothetically sending a lot
of non-regulars into a meeting still would be able to sway votes.
Sutter said that the convener still determines consensus,
and pointed out that WG21 tries to avoid sending out ballot
documents that would have a large chance of failing.
</p>

<p>Sutter summarized the new document rules, pointing out that
LiveLink is mandatory and other repositories are banned.
He said WG14 is trying to move its documents to LiveLink.
He also said it might be possible to continue using open-std.org
to just contain links to LiveLink. He indicated that new papers may
end up on LiveLink after July. Goldthwaite said she thinks
nobody has ever been able to make LiveLink work for BSI,
and voiced concern about the password management, and about
LiveLinks compatibility with client platforms.
</p>
<p>
Plum pointed out that researchers and article authors want to provide 
permanent links to the papers without requiring registration and having
links that work quickly and are stable. Voutilainen pointed
out that the idea of moving existing papers has potential
copyright issues. Sutter asked whether that applies to new
papers, and Voutilainen said it's possible.
Simonsen thought that since authors hold 
the copyright to their works, ISO can't dictate where the documents
can or cannot be stored and/or published.
</p>
<p>
Sutter said that
there are possibilities to comply with the LiveLink requirements
without disturbing the way we are used to working. Crowl asked
whether ISO will commit to universal accessibility, and Clow
emphasized the need to access the documents without authentication.
Sutter said he doesn't have an answer to that. Goldthwaite
expressed concern about document formats that are accepted
on LiveLink, Sutter said we have never submitted eg. word docs
and shouldn't need to do so in the future either.
</p>
<p>
Meredith asked about the issue lists, and Sutter explained the directives
apply only N-papers. van Winkel asked about the wikis, and Sutter
said that is outside the purview of ISO. Simonsen asked whether
this is going to be discussed in Rapperswil, and Sutter answered it's very
likely but he hopes that it will be in a limited fashion, since
the topic is mostly administrative.
</p>

<h3><a name="WG14">2.2.3 SC22/WG14 (C) report</a></h3>
<p>
WG14 is working on TS 18661 (IEEE floating point), their last meeting was in 
Parma, Italy, John Benito is stepping down as the convener, next
meeting in St. Louis, new convener (David Keaton) starting there. 
WG14 is trying to comply with the new JTC1 document requirements.
</p>

<h2><a name="New">3. New business</a></h2>

<h3><a name="Priorities">3.1 Review of priorities and target dates</a></h3>

<p>
The DIS ballot for C++14 closes Aug 15-18.
</p>

<h3><a name="Mailing review">3.2 Review of current mailings</a></h3>

<p>
One older paper, <a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2014/n3871.html">N3871</a>, needs to be put on the agenda, others being taken care of.
</p>

<h2><a name="AOB">3.3 Any other business</a></h2>

<p>
Koenig wishes to retire from maintaining the current reflectors. There are
also quite many problems with the existing mailing list software.
Sutter said there's likely going to be discussion between google
groups and mailman, and that there have been concerns about long-term
availability of google groups. Carruth assured that google groups are not going
to go away. Carruth also said that there has been work on fixing
the problems with emails being dropped or marked spam, and that both
google groups and mailman have the sufficient technology to avoid
these problems, and said that both of these options work fine, but
other options are likely going to be insufficiently good.
</p>
<p>Vollman
pointed out that google groups links in emails require javascript.
Sutter said that the decision needs to be done administratively
in a small group with input from the larger group. Clamage said
that we need to pay particular attention about solutions that meet
strong opposition. Sutter suggested having some admin reflector
discussions about the migration possibilities and options.
Miller said it would be useful to collect feedback from people
who have experience in mailman and google groups.
</p>

<p>
Carruth voiced concern about the scheduling of the subgroup
sessions and study group sessions during the meeting week,
and asked what the proper venue and timing for discussing
that would be. Sutter suggested taking that discussion
offline over food and beverages.
</p>


<h2><a name="Review">4. Review</a></h2>

<h3><a name="Resolutions">4.1 Review and approve resolutions and issues</a></h3>

None.

<h3><a name="Review actions">4.2 Review action items</a2></h3>

None. (Sutter to include a link to the previous minutes in the future
agendas)

<h2><a name="Closing">5. Closing process</a></h2>

<h3><a name="Next agenda">5.1 Establish next agenda</a></h3>

<p>
Will be in the post-meeting mailing.
</p>

<h3><a name="Meetings">5.2 Future meetings</a></h3>

<p>
Will be reviewed at the end of the Rapperswil meeting.
</p>

<h2><a name="Mailings">5.3 Future mailings</a></h2>

<p>
Will be discussed at the end of the Rapperswil meeting.
</p>

<h2><a name="Adjourn">5.4 Adjourn</a></h2>

<p>
Sutter ended the meeting 10:15 Pacific Time.
</p>

