Remote observers: No, because committee members want to freely speak their mind, and need to know who observes. The prospect of being recorded was seen as particularly problematic.
Needs volunteers, but we will try to be more verbose.
Workshop on forth-standard.org and forth200x.org integration. GW, AE, PK
First part already done: https://github.com/Forth-Standard/forth200x
Both the 2018 and 2019 meeting results will be integrated into the document in one step.
Still to be done
7A:0N:2A (abstentions due to non-attendance in 2018)
Take action when needed (and not before)
No electronic meeting
See 2d. There is https://github.com/Forth-Standard/forth-standard
A few improvents have been implemented, more to come.
Balance: 0, no income, no expenses
For personal reasons Matthias Trute cannot continue. BP is picking up the proposal.
Postpone action discussion: Workshop: BP, SP, AE
Discussion of the initialization of UVALUEs: Initialize by cloning an existing task, not by a HIS-like mechanism.
Contact Andrew Haley (SP). Workshop topic (pretty much everyone)
Workshop where GW explains the SWIG approach: Instead of doing a lot in Forth, do a lot in SWIG, and the result provides everything that Forth needs.
BL Rationale: GW volunteers for rewording
Presentation from GW (in workshop). Committee encourages: Move to proposal
Discussion of character sets. Discussion of language and country.
Proposal for >ORDER AE
Proposal for VOCABULARY UH
Response on behalf of the committee AE
Related to Clarify FIND
In addition, make a proposal to fix the shortcomings pointed out by Ruvim: execution token AE
Discuss them, finally do CfV
Write a rationale why this is a bad idea BP
Discuss in the rationale the caveats of the interaction of parsing words and [else], [if], [then] etc.
Changes to [ELSE] and [IF] rationale 10Y:0:0
AE: Write a reply inquiring about existing practice, wheter FP locals have more existing practice, and possibly turning it into a proper proposal.
Flocals F: proposal to bewritten by SP
add [ notation for locals to Gforth BP
BP will write a proposal for fixing this issue
AE: write a proposal to define interpretation semantics of COMPILE,
AE: write a reply, suggesting that ruv writes proposals; Renaming "name space" to "header space" should find consensus Some committee members are nervous about touching dictionary
PK: Write on the committee's behalf
PK: Wrote a reply on the committee's behalf
UH: Adjust proposal to allow exactly one use of orig. Proceed to CfV.
For this part I (AE) presented the contributions to the committee, so I noted only those parts where the committee voted and those where I should take an action. The Minutes should contain more about this.
AE: Make a proposal to make it explicit
Committee vote on this wording change: 0Y:5N:4A
Move the definition of "name token" from 15.3 to 15.2 8Y:0N:0A
Coming out of that:
Definition of "search order" and rewording of [defined] and [undefined] 9Y:0:0
Move to CfV
Discuss ways to avoid overloading the committee. Closing (with the option to reopen) a contribution would take it off the ToDo list of the committee. If a committee member replies to a requests for clarification, he will normally close the contribution.