From gls@Think.COM Tue Mar 17 21:45:29 1992
Received: from Mail.Think.COM by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA07058; Tue, 17 Mar 92 21:45:29 +0100
Return-Path: <gls@Think.COM>
Received: from Strident.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Tue, 17 Mar 92 15:45:17 -0500
From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
Received: by strident.think.com (4.1/Think-1.0C)
	id AA04935; Tue, 17 Mar 92 15:45:15 EST
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 15:45:15 EST
Message-Id: <9203172045.AA04935@strident.think.com>
To: walt@netcom.com
Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
In-Reply-To: Walt Brainerd's message of Tue, 17 Mar 92 10:06:38 PST <9203171806.AA13967@netcom.netcom.com>
Subject: (SC22WG5.58) Future procedures
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

   Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 10:06:38 PST
   From: walt@netcom.com (Walt Brainerd)

   > From: adt10@uts.amdahl.com (Andrew D. Tait)
   > To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
   > Subject: (SC22WG5.55) WG5L12 Proposal - The Wrong Approach
   > 
   > I am both concerned and disappointed that the WG5L12 committee has
   > developed a proposal for the future management of Fortran Standards
   > activities which merely embodies the practices and procedures that have
   > failed us so miserably in recent years.
   > 
   > WE NEED A RADICALLY DIFFERENT APPROACH.
     ...
   This is a two-edged sword.  What if it turns out there are good
   sound technical reasons for delaying something one year (as opposed
   to political fiddling just to to try to block or delay the standard,
   as happened last time)? ...

\begin{flame}

Let me be blunt.  The rules are not designed to guarantee any kind of
technical progress; they are (theoretically) designed first and
foremost to enforce due process, and to permit technical progress as
much as possible within that structure.  And you had better believe that
you want that due process; that's what protects you, as a committee
member making decisions that could affect the livelihoods of thousands
of people, from certain kinds of legal liability.

What the technical weenies (and I count myself in that set) have not
faced up to is the possibility that the majority actually prefers not
to make any technical progress!  Maybe the Fortran community would
have been better served by leaving Fortran 77 alone!  Or, more to the
point, maybe a majority of the Fortran community *thinks* it would
have been better off without Fortran 90.

I like Fortran 90.  I'm glad it got through.  But maybe there were
good reasons for its having to truly run the gauntlet.  You cannot
wish politics away by whining, any more than the politicians can wish
away the weenies, with all our facts and figures, by blustering.

With a billion dollars at stake, of course things are going to be
political.  Only a fool would think the issues are purely technical
(once this has been explained).  If a fledgling company can't support
a new standard, if it can't stand the cost of change, it might go out
of business.  Employees may lose jobs.  Marital relationships can be
strained.  Mortgages might be foreclosed.  Of course I am painting an
extreme picture, but it can happen.  We're talking about the real
world and real people here.  There are tradeoffs, and much of politics
has to do with the handling of tradeoffs that affect people's lives.

\end{flame}