POSIX FORTRAN Bindings Ballot Results

[John McGrory]

Submitted-by: mcgrory at aspen.IAG.HP.COM (John McGrory)

DATE :  3/26/91
FROM :  John McGrory, IEEE P1003.9 chair
TO   :  All Interested Parties (please forward where appropriate)
RE   :  Results of First Ballot on IEEE P1003.9 ("FORTRAN Bindings to POSIX")


A few weeks ago I received all the ballot returns from the IEEE office.
The materials include a summary of ballot results, a list of all ballot
group members, and a reproduction of all ballot comments and objections.
Below I have included the information from the ballot summary, and also
added a few additional comments regarding the status of the ballot.
Overall, I was quite pleased with the outcome of the ballot, and I feel
that with a concentrated effort over the next month (most notably the
meeting in April) we will be able to produce a revised document that
will gain the necessary approval.


Ballot Summary
--------------

  - The ballot closed on 2/20/91.
  - There were 73 people in the total balloting group; of this
    number, 56 are eligible to vote on the standard.  (The others
    are "parties of interest" but not eligible to vote, usually
    due to lack of IEEE or Computer Society membership.)

  [ the following totals are drawn only from the people in the
    "official" balloting group, i.e., those eligible to vote.  ]

  - 23 affirmative votes
  - 15 negative votes
  -  8 abstention votes
  ------
    46 votes total = 82% response

  - 23 affirmative votes
  - 15 negative votes
  -----
    38 votes total = 60% affirmative response

 ==> Ballot fails due to not acquiring a 75% affirmative response.



Additional Comments
-------------------

I received hardcopy of 23 ballots containing comments and objections.
Three ballots submitted from active working group members account for
(in rough estimation) 40% to 50% of the total number of objection/comment
items.  There are only a few other ballots containing any substantial
number (over about 20) of individual items, and many of these items are
duplicates of those contained in the three largest ballots.  Of the
remaining ballots, approximately six to eight present some form of
"general disapproval" due to fundamental objection(s) to the structure,
techniques, or conventions used in the draft standard.

Our Technical Editor has already processed the three large ballots (to
the extent allowed without the use of formal ballot resolution practices),
resulting in many editorial changes and a list of technical issues to
be addressed through conventional ballot resolution channels.  The other
ballots will be surveyed and sorted to some extent prior to the April
meeting, and the first day of the meeting will be dedicated to identifying
the key issues and prioritizing the work needed for ballot resolution.
The bulk of the remaining time at the meeting will be dedicated to
resolving ballot objections.  It is the preliminary opinion of myself
and the Technical Editor that we will be able to work through the bulk
of the ballot objections and comments at the meeting.  Additional
ballot resolution work will have to occur immediately following the
meeting, namely contacting specific balloters as necessary.  Our goal
for recirculation of the revised draft should be the end of May.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am quite encouraged by the
outcome of the first ballot, both from the standpoint of obtaining
substantial feedback on the proposed standard and also the prospects
for resolving a sufficient number of ballot objections to achieve
acceptance upon recirculation.   (In other words, I can see the light
at the end of the tunnel!)

If you have specific questions or would like to discuss the ballot in
more detail, feel free to contact me via e-mail or telephone.


	- John McGrory
	  IEEE P1003.9 chair
	  mcgrory at iag.hp.com
	  408-447-0265


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 23