[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
meeting next week
I haven't read your message yet because my file server is down.
But I heard that you're considering not having our Working Group
meeting next week because you don't believe all of us are taking
the Meta-object proposal seriously enough.
Dave has read the proposal, but he's away on vacation this week,
so he won't be able to give any written comments by tomorrow
morning. As for myself, I am in the process of reading the
proposal, with the goal of understanding it as best I can by the
time of the meeting. Remember, this is all new stuff and we need
some time to digest it.
About productive meetings: our meeting in Palo Alto was
productive because we were very close to reaching consensus on a
number of small issues. Each person took charge of a set of
issues, we discussed them, and we made decisions. I think our
first meeting on the Meta-object protocol will be productive in a
different way, more like our July meeting in Cambridge. At
that meeting we concentrated on one large topic -- Initialization
-- until we worked out the major framework of it.
I believe our discussion about the Meta-object protocol will be
productive because you have given us a much more comprehensive
proposal than we have seen before.
However, there are other reasons why it is necessary to meet. We
weren't quite ready to distribute Chapters 1 and 2 for the last
X3J13 meeting, because we didn't have time to sit down and be sure
that the new format of the function descriptions was correct in
every point. It's very important that our group carefully
reviews that draft and formally agrees that it's ready to
distribute. Also, we haven't had a chance to discuss
constructors as a group. We intended to do that in Fort Collins,
but at the last minute our Group meeting was canceled.
In summary, I believe it is very important that we meet next week,
and I have every reason to believe the meeting will be productive.
Please don't take the lack of immediate response from us
Symbolians as implying we aren't taking your proposal seriously.
We were very glad to see a detailed written proposal. I see two
major tasks ahead: 1. getting consensus from the Working Group
about the technical aspects of the Meta-object Protocol, and
filling in all the gaps, and 2. turning the proposal into the
appropriate language for the specification. We are eager to
participate in Task 1, and I'd like to help out with Task 2 as