From Keith.Bierman@eng.sun.com Tue Mar 17 22:55:07 1992
Received: from Sun.COM by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA08695; Tue, 17 Mar 92 22:55:07 +0100
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA05713; Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:52:37 PST
Received: from chiba.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA01399; Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:52:26 PST
Received: from localhost by chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA24670; Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:52:16 PST
Message-Id: <9203172152.AA24670@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM>
To: bill@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (Bill Leonard)
Cc: gls@Think.COM, walt@netcom.com, SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.60) Future procedures 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Mar 92 16:27:54 EST."
             <9203172127.AA20691@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> 
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:52:16 PST
From: Keith.Bierman@eng.sun.com
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


>X3J3 is so determined to go in a different direction than the majority
>wishes!  I don't believe X3J3 is very representative of the user community,

X3J3 goes where the majority of its members vote. There is simply no
evidence that this is any different than the space of all Fortran
users. Of course, there is no evidence it is properly representative
either. 

ANSI rules ensure that folks *are permitted* to attend and vote. There
appears to be no attempt to ensure that it be representative (nay, the
rules favor the small over the large .... one vote per organization
.... no weight for org, nor for user base; for better or worse). If we
feel compelled to reinvent representative democracy, perhaps we should
just punt this to Congress (or internationally, to the Security
Council). It might prevent them from spending time on really dangerous
topics. 

  1. Hold Public Reviews of the document(s) that describe the goals of the
     next revision.  This needs to be an honest and open review, and it
     should be well-publicized and long enough to get adequate feedback.
     The committee also needs to be ready to scrap those goals, or make
     major revisions, if the public indicates they do not agree with them.

Seemingly simple, perhaps overly so. There is ample evidence that a
cursory reading of virtually any complex document will generally not
be sufficient for the "common reader" to comment sensibly. Note that
in most "democracies" the population votes for representatives, *not*
detailed laws. Even with initiatives, the population selects AYE or
NAY, and isn't permitted direct kibbitzing.

While there is a lot of value in kibbitzing, and I strongly endorse
making much of the process more acessible to those with good net
connectivity, I don't believe that you can do simple headcounts. We'd
all be programming OS 360 otherwise ;>

>be too hard to get, especially if you tell them it is to forestall
>major criticism late in the process.

I don't think it will change the last minute fireworks. The rights of
the minority are rigourously protected by ANSI rules. Far more so than
in the rest of society. 

>The first step is to recognize that the committee does not adequately
>represent the majority of its consumers.

This is far from clear to me.