Austin Group Minutes of the 14 Nov Teleconference 	Austin-148 Page 1 of 1
Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group.              November 15, 2002


Attendees

Andrew Josey, The Open Group
Don Cragun , Sun, PASC OR
Dave Butenhof, HP
Alexander Terekhov, IBM
Mark Brown, IBM, TOG OR
Joanna Farley, Sun
Keld Simonsen, 
Nick Stoughton, USENIX, WG15 OR


The call commenced with an update on current status. 
Andrew stated that ISO would announce the approval of the international
standard today. (see the Austin Group web site for the press release)

On the TC1 ballot at ISO, this opened on October 31 and closes January 31.
The draft is scheduled for consideration by the IEEE standards board on
December 10. The schedule for approval by the board of The Open Group
is TBD.


Andrew reported that he had annotated the aardvark report at
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/finaltext/xshbug.txt
with some updates after the email discussions since the last call.
It was decided to continue at number 28 and attempt a complete pass
through the document before looping back. It is expected that this
set of aardvark could take several months to process.

The discussions picked up at item 28 and quite lengthy discussions continued
about threads and some of the terminology used.

 _____________________________________________________________________________
 OBJECTION                                       Enhancement Request Number 28
 terekhov@de.ibm.com                  Defect in XSH pthread_join() (rdvk#  41)
 {alt-join-2002-10-22}                   Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:18:07 +0100 (BST)
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Accept_____    Accept as marked below_X___     Duplicate_____     Reject_____
 Rationale for rejected or partial changes:

Discussion over the terminology "the implementation has detected"
It was agreed that there is some abiguity and may need an interpretation

Don proposed that for EINVAL we could change "shall fail"->"may fail"
and remove "the implementation has detected" however ESRCH looks clear

The consensus appears to be with this proposal


 _____________________________________________________________________________
 OBJECTION                                       Enhancement Request Number 29
 terekhov@de.ibm.com                  Defect in XSH pthread_kill() (rdvk#  42)
 {alt-kill-2002-11-06}                            Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:04:03 GMT
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Accept_____    Accept as marked below_X___     Duplicate_____     Reject_____
 Rationale for rejected or partial changes:


The consensus was that it should stay the way it is , symettry with
kill() was one of the reasons also the fact that if there is no thread and
never has been a thread it must fail, having a may fail would mean 
that you could not count on even that behavior.

 _____________________________________________________________________________


We will contine on ERN 30 at the next call.
Andrew will update the aardvark by close of business Nov 15 2002.


Next call, next week November 21st, same time (4pm UK, 8am Pacific)
Same dialin logistics.