Updated README to reflect changes to the ARG procedures

[Richard-Wai]

Comprehensive re-write of README to reflect changes to the ARG procedures approved by the ARG on Mar 30, 2023.

Specifically this loses the path to new AI creation from Github tickets, including a more streamlined process for Language Study Group creation.

[Jeff-Cousins]

The ARG considers these enhancements or errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. ➢ I never noticed this sentence before, but it implies we are incorporating "errors" into future versions of the Ada standard. I think it would be better to say something like: ➢ The ARG considers proposals that address these identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. I think I’d prefer something like: The ARG considers these enhancements or corrections of errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

Jeff

Sent from Mail for Windows

[ARG-Editor]

The ARG considers these enhancements or errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. ➢ I never noticed this sentence before, but it implies we are incorporating "errors" into future versions of the Ada standard. I think it would be better to say something like: ➢ The ARG considers proposals that address these identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. I think I’d prefer something like: The ARG considers these enhancements or corrections of errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

I agree with Jeff. I thought Tucker was adding an additional sentence, rather than a replacement, since it didn't make sense to be as that. Certainly not all enhancements come from "shortcomings"; some are natural extensions and a few (like child packages were back in Ada 95) building on strengths (I don't think there was any real shortcoming with Ada 83 packages; the notion that it could be even better seems to have mainly been in the design team). And there's a few that don't have much of a justification at all. :-)

Perhaps a merge would be even better:

The ARG considers these enhancements or identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

                   Randy.

[sttaft]

Perhaps a merge would be even better:

The ARG considers these enhancements or identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

This seems to suffer from the original problem, where it sounds like we will be incorporating "identified shortcomings" into the standard.

[ARG-Editor]

I guess we already did that (incorporated "identified shortcomings" into the Standard). :-)

I suppose we'd need to add "fixes for" to the sentence: The ARG considers these enhancements or fixes for identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard.

But admittedly, that makes it a less appealing option.

---

From: S. Tucker Taft @.*** Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 12:16 PM To: Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input Cc: ARG-Editor; Review requested Subject: Re: [Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input] Updated README to reflect changes to the ARG procedures (PR #46)

Perhaps a merge would be even better:

The ARG considers these enhancements or identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

This seems to suffer from the original problem, where it sounds like we will be incorporating "identified shortcomings" into the standard.

- Reply to this email directly, view https://github.com/Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input/pull/46#issuec omment-1604579230 it on GitHub, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AT65YN7Q7EGPHXRD2QYALUDXM XFOZANCNFSM6AAAAAAYJB5XCA . You are receiving this because your review was requested. https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AT65YN3NYJLVBAZ7I3XU5KDXMXFOZA5CNFS M6AAAAAAYJB5XCCWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTS 7UPXZ4.gif Message ID: @.***>

[Richard-Wai]

The ARG considers these enhancements or errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. ➢ I never noticed this sentence before, but it implies we are incorporating "errors" into future versions of the Ada standard. I think it would be better to say something like: ➢ The ARG considers proposals that address these identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. I think I’d prefer something like: The ARG considers these enhancements or corrections of errors for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

I agree with Jeff. I thought Tucker was adding an additional sentence, rather than a replacement, since it didn't make sense to be as that. Certainly not all enhancements come from "shortcomings"; some are natural extensions and a few (like child packages were back in Ada 95) building on strengths (I don't think there was any real shortcoming with Ada 83 packages; the notion that it could be even better seems to have mainly been in the design team). And there's a few that don't have much of a justification at all. :-)

Perhaps a merge would be even better:

The ARG considers these enhancements or identified shortcomings for incorporation into future versions of the Ada standard. So as to keep some distinction between Amendments and Binding Interpretations.

                   Randy.

I'm going to go with Jeff's suggestion for now, until we can come up with something better.. I certainly have not been able to!

[ARG-Editor]

These changes all looked fine. I didn't verify that you made all of the changes needed, only that the changes looked correct. (And I don't see any Approve button anywhere.)