Minutes of the 23rd May 2019 Teleconference Austin-935 Page 1 of 1 Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. 26th May 2019 Attendees: Nick Stoughton, USENIX, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 OR Don Cragun, IEEE PASC OR Geoff Clare, The Open Group Joerg Schilling, FOKUS Fraunhofer Eric Blake, Red Hat, The Open Group OR Mark Ziegast, SHware Systems Dev. Andrew Josey, The Open Group * General news A reminder that there is no meeting on the 27th May as its a holiday in the US and UK. * Outstanding actions (Please note that this section has been flushed to shorten the minutes - to locate the previous set of outstanding actions, look to the minutes from 9 March 2018 and earlier) Bug 1077: Recommend support for wide-character regcomp and regexec and/or specify multi-byte behavior OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1077 Andrew has completed the action to ping his Apple contact and is awaiting a reply. Bug 1122: POSIX should include gettext() and friends OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1122 Left open as an action is still in progress to flesh out a complete proposal. Bug 1218: Add reallocarray() OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218 Action: Eric to ask if The Open Group is willing to sponsor this interface. A full set of changes would need to be developed. Bug 1219: snprintf requirement to fail when n > INT_MAX conflicts with C OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1219 Action: Nick (on his return) to ask C committee for guidance, whether an n > INT_MAX but less than SIZE_MAX, where SIZE_MAX is between, inclusively, INT_MAX+1 and UINT_MAX (or higher on 64-bit architectures) may be a preemptive reason to fail the interface, without examining any other arguments. Bug 1220: Add an API to query the name of a locale category of a locale object OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1220 Action: Eric to ask if The Open Group is willing to sponsor this interface. * Current Business The purpose of this meeting was to review the PAR and the PMC Criteria document that had been circulated to the Austin Core mailing list. (After the meeting these have been posted to the document register as Austin/936 and Austin/937 respectively). We started by discussing the PAR. Mark Ziegast raised a concern that the PAR should not state that Graphics interfaces are out of scope. He requested the statement be removed from the statement of scope. A discussion followed that included the following. - bringing graphics interfaces into scope may solve some programming issues, however until there is a proposal of actual interfaces, it may be premature to add scope - if we strike the line now, the document may be rejected if we do not address graphics interfaces (which would happen if actual interfaces are not proposed in a timely manner) - whereas if we leave the line now, but interfaces are proposed in time, we could amend the PAR later to strike the line at that time, as part of sponsoring graphics interfaces We discussed whether we needed to call an OR vote. The consensus for today was to leave the line in place for now (graphics interfaces remain out of scope for Issue 8) with the option to amend PAR if interfaces are proposed with a sponsor. We then moved onto discuss the PMC criteria which contain a more detailed plan. A number of changes were discussed and agreed, with Andrew taking an action to update the document. Don had submitted comments by email to Austin Core. A summary is enclosed: --Start quote-- >The project is anticipated to take 40 months from PAR approval. >We are looking for PAR approval in September 2019. > Project start: Base document available D1 (September 2019) > - merges in Issue 8 tagged items > - merges in TC3-2008 items > - removes obsolescent interfaces Some obsolescent interfaces are still in the C Standard and, therefore, can't be removed. Geoff wants to change some obsolescent interfaces to legacy; I think they should just remain obsolescent. And, where we have obsolescent POSIX extensions to C Standard functions (e.g. asctime_r() and ctime_r()), we need to consider whether or not they should be removed, deleted, or kept with whatever classificaton is appled to the base C Standard functions on which they are based. Consider changing the above three items to: - merge in issue8 tagged items - merge in tc3-2008 tagged items - determine disposition of obsolescent interfaces {snip} >Formal approval by the IEEE will be December 2022 The IEEE ballot group may well have comments on the first draft that it sees. We should not assume that the IEEE ballot group wlll approve the first draft it see. I would think we should send Draft 3 (the first feature complete draft) or Draft 3.1 to IEEE as the first IEEE ballot draft. Rather than saying we expect approval by the IEEE in December 2022, it would probably be more politic to say we expect to send the completed ballot results to REVCOM for approval as a standard by whatever the deadline is for them to approve it during their December 2022 meeting. {snip} I don't disagree wth anything you have said in section 10 or Appendix A, but we need to have a plan for how the ISO ballot will be handled. Are we going to ask TJC1 or SC22 to just adopt the approved IEEE/The Open Group standard or are we going to ask them (other than Nick and Jörg) to participate in the development and ballotting process? Do we need a work item at ISO? What are the ballot time requirements? Will meeting those requirements affect your schedule in section 3? Which, if any, drafts should be sent to ISO for ballot before we have an approved IEEE Standard and an approved The Open Group Single UNIX Specification? --end quote-- We agreed to bring the IEEE ballot forward in the draft schedule. The first IEEE ballot draft will be Draft 3. This would also need an update to the first ballot date listed in the PAR. There was discussion about the impact of merging in the "issue8" tagged bugs. The wording was changed to: determine disposition of all Issue 8 tagged items (merge in draft 1, defer to draft 2, defer to issue 9, ...) The wording about obsolescent interfaces was also changed to: determine disposition of obsolescent interfaces A wording change was agreed to better describe the final submission for approval. Submit completed ballot results and draft for approval by IEEE REVCOM for the December 2022 meeting We discussed ISO balloting and Nick will take action to confirm the approach. We adjusted the plan to include ISO balloting starting with Draft 3. It is likely that ISO would hold a New Work Item ballot with Draft 3. Action: Andrew will circulate the revised PAR and PMC criteria to the Austin Group for a final check. He will also cc the PASC SEC. After the next Austin Group meeting he will submit for approval by the PASC SEC. Bug 1227: Sub-section numbering in 2.9.1 is inadequate OPEN http://austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1227 We will continue on this item on the next call. Next Steps ---------- The next calls are on: NO CALL May 27 2019 (Monday) May 30 2019 (Thursday) This call will be for 90 minutes. June 3 2019 (Monday) This call will be for 60 minutes. Calls are anchored on US time. (8am Pacific) Please check the calendar invites for new dial in details. Apologies in advance: Geoff Clare 2019-06-03 http://austingroupbugs.net An etherpad is usually up for the meeting, with a URL using the date format as below: https://posix.rhansen.org/p/201x-mm-dd username=posix password=2115756#