ADA RAPPORTEUR GROUP PROCEDURES These Procedures were approved by the ARG on November 1, 1995. 1 Purpose of the Ada Rapporteur Group The Ada Rapporteur Group (ARG) is a subgroup of ISO-IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG9, the ISO Working Group for Ada. The ARG is developing technical reports and draft ISO Defect Reports addressing comments and questions concerning the ISO Standard for Ada. 1.1 Membership Members of the ARG are appointed by the convenor of WG 9. WG 9 has agreed that non-members of WG 9 can be members of the ARG. Membership entitles a person to vote during ARG discussions and to participate in ARG letter ballots. Members are expected to attend meetings regularly, to participate in e-mail discussions, and to vote on letter ballots. 1.2 Meetings The ARG meets two or three times a year; location and dates will be determined as appropriate, striking a balance between meeting in Europe and the US. Non-members may attend the meetings upon invitation; their active participation is at the discretion of the Chair. 2 Processing Language Comments Comments on the Standard are sent to WG 9, SC 22, or preferably by electronic mail to ada-comment at sw-eng.falls-church.va.us, following the comment format specified in the Reference Manual. Each comment is logged and given a unique identification number. The ARG deals only with Ada commentaries, not individual comments per se. An Ada commentary contains all information relevant to the point addressed by a language comment, including any recommended action to be taken on the point, the rationale for the recommendation, all written comments relevant to the topic of the commentary, and a history of the commentary's processing. The commentary also provides summary information that can be published. Received comments are given a provisional classification (the classes are described in Section 3). If the comment pertains to any existing language commentaries, the comment is associated with them. Otherwise, a new commentary is created to deal with the new topic. ARG consideration of a commentary has been completed when the commentary is either accepted or classified as requiring no further action. The ARG disposition of a commentary is determined by a 2/3 vote of members present at an ARG meeting; the chairman has a vote. After the ARG has approved a commentary, an ARG member may request a letter ballot (even if the commentary is approved unanimously). Letter ballots allow for further discussion and consideration of a proposed action before it is final. If a letter ballot is requested, the commentary is circulated among the ARG for consideration after the ARG meeting and a second vote is taken by mail; the commentary is approved if 2/3 of members responding to the ballot vote in favor of it. If there are any negative votes, however, those members voting negatively are given an opportunity to argue their case at the next meeting. This procedure is followed to give a maximum opportunity to achieve consensus, and to ensure that any potential errors are given appropriate attention. Disapproval of a letter ballot means the commentary is subject to further discussion and vote at the next ARG meeting. The Chair may at his/her discretion call for a letter ballot on draft commentaries prior to any discussion of the commentary at a meeting to shorten the process for issues that are either non-controversial or deemed sufficiently discussed by electronic mail exchanges. A request by any member of the ARG for discussion of such a commentary at a meeting shall be honored; inm this case, the commentary shall not be forwarded to WG 9, until a vote at a meeting has taken place. After the ARG has approved a commentary (but prior to conducting any requested letter ballot), a draft of the approved ARG position is prepared and circulated (by electronic mail) to ARG members for editorial review and comment. (At the Chair's discretion, non-members may be invited to comment as well.) Editorial comments are due three weeks after the draft has been sent out for review. Comments are incorporated into the draft at the discretion of the Chair. Substantive changes are recirculated for further editorial review. If new issues are raised during the editorial review, further discussion of the commentary may take place. Upon completion of the editorial review and any letter ballot, approved commentaries are forwarded to WG 9 for action. (Commentaries approved by an ARG meeting, but subject to a subsequent letter ballot may be forwarded provisionally for consideration by WG 9; such commentaries are not considered by WG 9 if they fail the letter ballot.) If a commentary is approved by WG 9, WG 9 may request that the ARG produce a Defect Report in accordance with ISO format and rules for further handling by WG-9. Absent such a request, the approved commentary requires no further action by the ARG. If it is not approved, it is returned to the ARG for further consideration. 3 Classification and Status of Language Commentaries Language commentaries are categorized as shown below. The purpose of the classification is to distinguish among the following points: is a change to the text of the Standard desirable? Should the recommendation affect the status of validated compilers? Is the commentary one that can be deferred until the Standard is undergoing a general revision? No Action The topic of the comment requires no action on the part of the ARG (e.g., the comment asks why a design decision was made or the substance of the commentary has been subsumed by another commentary). Presentation Non-technical revisions to the Standard, typographical errors, improvements to examples or notes, etc. are included in this class. No decision proposed here affects the status of any validated compiler. Pathology Detailed resolution is not thought to have any benefit to Ada users. The ARG strongly recommends that no validation test depend on commentaries in this class. Confirmation The point raised in the commentary can be resolved by direct reference to the Standard; the point is not considered to be of general interest. Ramification The point raised in the commentary can be resolved by referring to the Standard; the conclusion or the reasoning justifying the conclusion is considered to be of general interest and should be published widely. Binding Interpretation Although the wording of the Standard may be unclear, inconsistent, or incorrect, the intent is considered clear. Changes to the Standard should probably be made to forestall confusion in the future. Commentaries in this class will generally be published widely. Non-binding Interpretation The recommended interpretation can, but need not, be obeyed by validated compilers. The recommendation is likely to be incorporated in the next revision of the Standard. Commentaries are placed in this class when it is considered unreasonable to force implementations to conform to the recommended interpretation, but the usability of Ada is increased if implementations do conform to it. Commentaries in this class will be published widely. Study A comment proposes a change to the Standard. The desirability of the proposed change will be considered when a revision of the Standard is planned. Correction A comment proposes a change to a commentary previously approved by WG 9. In addition to its classification, a language commentary is tracked according to its processing status: Received A comment has been received that is not relevant to an existing commentary, so a new commentary is created together with a provisional classification of the point addressed by the comment. A classification is provisional until approved by the ARG. The purpose of a provisional classification is to help direct attention to those comments that present potentially substantive points. In particular, subsequent discussion of a comment initially classified as "binding interpretation" might result in its classification as "ramification" or "confirmation." Work Item Preliminary analysis of the commentary has been performed. The commentary is ready to be placed on the agenda for a ARG meeting. No Action No further action is needed on a commentary, e.g., because it has been combined with another commentary or because the ARG has agreed that no action is required or desirable. ARG Approved This category reflects the disposition of a commentary at the ARG level. Approved commentaries are forwarded for further action by WG 9. WG 9 Approved This category reflects action by WG 9 on commentaries that have been approved by the ARG. If a commentary is not approved, it is returned to the ARG as a work item. WG 9 may give provisional approval to a commentary, meaning that all parts of the commentary are approved except the discussion section. The commentary must be considered again for final, full approval. ISO Approved This category reflects action by ISO on commentaries that resulted in ISO "Defect Reports". If a Defect Report is not approved by ISO, it is, in general, referred back to the ARG as a work item. 4. Availability of Commentaries Commentaries at all stages of development shall be available to all interested parties by electronic access.