From walt@netcom.com Wed Mar 18 04:36:29 1992 Received: from netcom.netcom.com by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA19272; Wed, 18 Mar 92 04:36:29 +0100 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27254; Tue, 17 Mar 92 19:37:00 PST Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 19:37:00 PST From: walt@netcom.com (Walt Brainerd) Message-Id: <9203180337.AA27254@netcom.netcom.com> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Procedures X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 | From: Guy Steele | To: walt@netcom.netcom.com | Subject: (SC22WG5.58) Future procedures | From: walt@netcom.com (Walt Brainerd) | | > From: adt10@uts.amdahl.com (Andrew D. Tait) | > | > 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. | | This was Andrew's and Loren's text you are flaming at, so why did you >>>>>>| send it specially to me? 8^). Actually, what I believe Loren was suggesting was some modification (maybe significant) of the procedures, not abandonment of all procedures, so this appears completely irrelevant to me, even if Bill wished he had said it. But I certainly agree with it, except I would say that if significant technical progress is not possible, there is no reason for any of it. | 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. It is fortunate that you now have someone else besides me (Keith) that believes in representative democracy and can explain it when people forget what it is and how it works. | 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. I have no problem with X3J3 doing technical development of a standard and then having it run the technical gauntlet of review and political gauntlet of X3. I object when those whiners go to X3 to get X3 to interfere in technical matters in which they are not competent. | With a billion dollars at stake, of course things are going to be | political. Of course. As I said, TRY to keep the politics separate from the technical development. But it always puzzles me that the people who talk about the BILLIONS of past investment in Fortran never discuss the possible TRILLIONS of future investment. Every time we do something that hurts the long term future in order to accommodate the immediate future, someone will pay very dearly (but what do we care-- we don't have to worry about that, right?) | The first step is to recognize that the committee does not adequately | represent the majority of its consumers. | | Bill Leonard Like Keith, I would like to see the evidence for this (or against it). | From Presley: | Walt, you know that I hate to agree with you... but you're right. See, we actually got some good ideas out on the table with all this foolishness. I hope some good can come of that. | From Andrew: | > A master must be identified and protected against changes. | | >How do you provide the protection? I thought Andrew was suggesting a means of ensuring the "integrity" of the document, so that no "unauthorized" changes would get made, either accidentally or by evil saboteurs. There are some possibilities here: better backup and distribution, effective use of version control, etc. | Why... it should be public domain information. ANSI should have the | right to publish the documents that define a standard and that should | be copyrighted... Nothing more. The document...not the text. Walt | should NOT have the right to SELL the standard, but you should and I | should have the right to have our personal, electronic or paper copy. | Without the right to reproduce and sell for profit (or non-profit.) I assume everyone (at least on X3J3) has their electronic copy. I have only "sold" the electronic version in the sense that Lahey and Global Engineering have sold paper copies--for a modest distribution fee, given that there is no other way to get it. I have tried to stop doing that in expectation of a reply from ANSI or ISO, but lots of people are pestering me. | I stand on each of them. You many not like it, but I have my right to | have my positions and also the right not to be jabbed for those positions | by cynical remarks. | | FYI. Presley You score 50% on the above. Nobody has questioned your right to express your opinion, but you certainly can expect to get pummeled by those who disagree. How do you conclude that a statement that disagrees with your position is an attempt to claim you have no right to make it? You say my position and Loren's represent "BS"; is this not jabbing with cynical remarks?