On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, John Potter wrote:

> I make no claim that the committee gives positive or even
> negative feedback to thoughts expressed in this newsgroup,
> but they do seem to listen.  I don't think that it is any
> worse than "Hey that's a neat idea. (underbreath, we will
> ignore it)".

I know of several instances where a concern expressed in
this newsgroup or in comp.lang.c++.moderated, even when not
filed specifically as a Defect Report, resulted soon afterward
in a issue being added to the issue lists.  Members of the
C++ Committee read these newsgroups carefully, and pay
attention to what is said.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
news:3CA60E91.7FA03202@web.de...
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
> [...]
> > I've mentioned this to Mr. Terekhov before: having an impact on the
standard
> > depends mostly on making cogent technical arguments, patiently
explaining
> > your position, and building consensus. It's great exercise: I continue
to
> > learn much about working with people with widely varying needs and
> > viewpoints from my participation in the committee.
>
> The fact thay you have mentioned something to me does not
> make it any worse (or better ;-)).

No, but the fact that the message doesn't seem to have made much of an
impression does mean that perhaps there's a communication failure somewhere.

> Personally, I am NOT in
> business of writing standards, compilers, libraries, etc.
> I am just an application programmer. In a way, I am your
> (C++ committee) "average" *customer*. That's it. All I want
> is just a place/process where I could provide you with some
> {early} feedback AND the ability to watch the technical
> discussions -- the way how and why did you come to this
> or that decision.

The committee tries to put as much of the relevant rationale and
decision-process as possible in the defect report lists. I think you will
see some of this if you look at the current LWG defects.

> I am NOT interested in "law and politics"
> you seem to be occasionally busy playing over there. ;-)

The less-loaded words you might use are "specification and negotiation". I
don't think the specification part is avoidable if you want a standard. The
negotiation part is just a fact of life unless you're a dictator. Even if
you pay for membership you get at most one vote, and if you care about a
particular decision it's important to build a consensus around it.

> I guess that the company I am working for (IBM) have
> enough people on the *payroll* to do it. Nor am I
> interested in things like:
>
> http://www.boost.org/people/dave_abrahams.htm
>
> "...Boost Consulting, a company dedicated to providing
>  professional support and development services for the
>  Boost C++ libraries and associated tools. "
>
> This link and the quote out of context is NOT meant
> to be some sort of a personal attack.

Thanks for the free advertisement, then.

> I have no problems
> with things like that. I just want to point out that
> anyone working at some committee/boost.org/etc... HAS
> some reasons and interest to do it -- it could be part
> of their business (things they make money from, I mean
> career, books, consulting, etc) and that's just fine.

Why does my personal consulting business (established only 6 months ago)
give me more of a stake in the standard than you have? I participate in the
committee because: 1) I care about C++, which I use a lot 2) I think I can
make a contribution 3) It's fun. Before I started this business, I was "just
an application programmer in the trenches" like you.

> But there are other folks, like me, out there, who want
> to be heard and have some little influence too, despite
> a rather limited abilities (and desires) to participate
> in that "formal" process as it is (in my view) right now.

That's easy enough: participate in this forum, and at boost if you're so
inclined. However, be aware that the level of influence you have will be
largely determined by your ability to build consensus around your positions
(call it "playing politics" if you like). It's just a fact of life that you
can't change human nature. People, especially busy people, will only respond
positively to ideas that can be made accessible to them and which are
presented in a way that does not induce too much "emotional/intellectual
static". If you find that odious, you should be complaining to the
designer(s) of the genetic code, not the C++ code.

> Personally, I would strongly encourage you to look
> at the POSIX (Open Group) standardization process.

If you are speaking to me, personally, I respectfully decline. I am not
prepared to get involved in trying to change the overall process of the
standardization committee. I estimate that would be a huge (probably
impossible) undertaking, at a level of commitment far beyond what I'm
prepared to invest in my committee participation.

Maybe somebody else is ready to take that project on, though... how about
you?

-Dave



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

mseitz@yahoo.com (Matt Seitz) wrote in message news:<8e91e363.0203271534.7e415061@posting.google.com>...

> "P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com> wrote in message news:<3ca082ea$0$3152$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
>
> > So you consider it elitist to shell out thousands of dollars, and hundreds
> > of hours, a year, just to have a CHANCE to influence a few issues (out of
> > hundreds) in the revision of a programming language standard?
>
> Leaving aside the inflamatory term "elitism", the requirement to spend
> thousands of dollars and fly to distant countries certainly limits
> participation.  One can view that as
>
> Good:  Only the most committed people get to directly influence the
> Standard.  Time is not wasted on dilletantes.
>
> A necessary evil:  While broader participation might be desirable,
> face-to-face participation is needed to efficiently discuss and settle
> issues.
>
> Bad:  By limiting participation, good ideas are lost and the will of
> the majority is not represented.
>
> In this case, I think comittee members are open to input from the
> wider C++ community, limiting the bad aspects of the current system.
> But limiting direct participation only to those willing and able to
> spend large amounts of money will cause some to feel shut out of the
> process.

So how would you widen participation?  Remember that the committee has
a budget of exactly zero.

The committee already has a public web site with all important
documents available for download, except the standard itself, which is
available electronically from the ANSI web site. IIRC, the C++
standard was the first to be made available electronically, with a
much reduced cost.

For all practical purposes, the committee can and does accept proposal
documents from anyone.  And anyone can join the committee (although
they do have to pay ANSI an $800US/year fee; I suppose if that is too
much, you can scout around and find some other country whose national
body charges less.) The committee accepts Defect Reports from anyone
willing to post a message on comp.std.c++.  For that matter,
comp.std.c++ is run by moderators who are mostly committee members,
and committee members spend countless hours answering queries on
comp.std.c++.  (That last isn't always obvious, since committee
members don't always identify themselves as such in postings.)

Although like comp.std.c++ there is no official tie, Boost
(www.boost.org) provides another direct pipeline into the committee,
this time particularly suited to library additions. Probably half of
the committee's active Library Working Group members are also active
in Boost, and the other LWG members are very supportive of Boost.

What's left for the committee to do to encourage direct participation?

--Beman Dawes

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Beman Dawes wrote:

> mseitz@yahoo.com (Matt Seitz) wrote in message news:<8e91e363.0203271534.7e415061@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>"P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com> wrote in message news:<3ca082ea$0$3152$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
>>
>>
>>>So you consider it elitist to shell out thousands of dollars, and hundreds
>>>of hours, a year, just to have a CHANCE to influence a few issues (out of
>>>hundreds) in the revision of a programming language standard?
>>>
>>Leaving aside the inflamatory term "elitism", the requirement to spend
>>thousands of dollars and fly to distant countries certainly limits
>>participation.  One can view that as



> The committee already has a public web site with all important
> documents available for download, except the standard itself, which is
> available electronically from the ANSI web site. IIRC, the C++
> standard was the first to be made available electronically, with a
> much reduced cost.


What is that web site ?


>
> For all practical purposes, the committee can and does accept proposal
> documents from anyone.


What is the official means for doing this ? Where is this information
posted ?

>
> What's left for the committee to do to encourage direct participation?


Standardize the process and clearly explain how one submits a proposal
so that other C++ programmers can understand.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

The information you request is in the FAQ for this newsgroup.
Unfortunately, the FAQ is not currently available due to the
FAQ maintainer changing jobs and losing the web site.  We'll
have the FAQ online as soon as we can.
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

For what it's worth, I have been attending committee meetings since 1995,
and until this year couldn't get my employer to pony up for the membership
fee (now I work for myself, so I'm paying my own way). It's not widely
known, but committee meetings are open to anyone. Because I wasn't a formal
member, I didn't get a vote, but that certainly didn't stop me from having
an influence. In fact I surprised myself by making what I considered to be a
major contribution in a climate where many members were saying it was too
late for major changes.

I've mentioned this to Mr. Terekhov before: having an impact on the standard
depends mostly on making cogent technical arguments, patiently explaining
your position, and building consensus. It's great exercise: I continue to
learn much about working with people with widely varying needs and
viewpoints from my participation in the committee.

I showed up first at the Nashua meeting because Andy Koenig admonished me
that there was no chance I'd have an impact if I didn't show my face. In
fact I don't think that's strictly true. People like Peter Dimov, for
example, have had a significant effect on what's being discussed by
convincing committee members that a cause was important, and getting the
member to champion the issue. However, showing up makes a big difference if
you care about something: probably nobody else understands its importance
the way you do.

-Dave

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
news:3CA26861.65C3A0F9@web.de...
>
> "P.J. Plauger" wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
news:3C9EE216.FCC1FC10@web.de...
> >
> > > > It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the
meetings. [...]
> > >
> > > And what is the price to take a look at this, for example:
> > >
> > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/
> > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/
> > >
> > > <?>
> >
> > Since you have a *.de e-mail address, you should probably ask DIN.
> > Maybe nothing (other than a bit of work). You are also welcome to
> > join J16, in which case the price is the same dues all the rest of
> > us pay to participate.
> >
> > > FYI (something having to do with the standards and/but
> > > being a bit more "open", and less "pricey", I think):
> > >
> > > http://www.opengroup.org
> > > http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Sure, good bunch. But if you want to influence ISO standards, you
> > have to play by ISO rules.
>
> < copy&paste from the 2nd link above >
>
> The Austin Common Standards Revision Group (CSRG) is a joint technical
> working group established to consider the matter of a common revision of
> ISO/IEC 9945-1, ISO/IEC 9945-2, IEEE Std 1003.1, IEEE Std 1003.2 and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the appropriate parts of the Single UNIX Specification.



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

> What's left for the committee to do to encourage direct participation?
Well, here was the original request:

>From: Edward Diener <eldiener@earthlink.net>
>I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from
the
>C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have
not
>heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
>time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
>somewhere easily accessible.

Your article seems a good start to answering this request.  Perhaps
this information could be posted on the committee's home page, and
committee members could refer people to this site.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Edward Diener <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3CA46519.1020100@earthlink.net>...

> > The committee already has a public web site with all important
> > documents available for download, except the standard itself, which is
> > available electronically from the ANSI web site. IIRC, the C++
> > standard was the first to be made available electronically, with a
> > much reduced cost.
>
>
> What is that web site ?

http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ and http://www.ansi.org/
respectively.

I know the comp.std.c++ FAQ is offline at the moment, but putting
queries like "C++ standards committee" into Google turns up the
committee web site as the first search entry.  I guess the point is
that if someone assumes the committee is totally closed to the
outside, they might not bother to check the obvious like FAQ's and
search engines, or post something on comp.std.c++.  Instead, try
assuming the committee makes important information available on a
regular basis, and work from there.

> > For all practical purposes, the committee can and does accept proposal
> > documents from anyone.
>
> What is the official means for doing this ? Where is this information
> posted ?
> >
> > What's left for the committee to do to encourage direct participation?
>
> Standardize the process and clearly explain how one submits a proposal
> so that other C++ programmers can understand.

The ISO has long since "Standardize[d] the process". I'm guessing
here, but it sounds like what you are really asking is for a way to
avoid the standard ISO process, which can be confusing because it
relies on "national bodies" and other bureaucratic concepts.

The committee, with the help of the comp.std.c++ moderators, did
provide a short-cut way of submitting Defect Reports. That seems to
have worked quite well.  Perhaps a similar comp.std.c++ mechanism can
be set up for proposals.  But proposals are a lot more complex that
Defect Reports; they are much harder to write and most require a
committment from the proposer to carry the proposal forward over time.

--Beman Dawes

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Matt Seitz wrote:
>
> "P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com> wrote in message news:<3ca082ea$0$3152$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
>
> > So you consider it elitist to shell out thousands of dollars, and hundreds
> > of hours, a year, just to have a CHANCE to influence a few issues (out of
> > hundreds) in the revision of a programming language standard?
>
> Leaving aside the inflamatory term "elitism", the requirement to spend
> thousands of dollars and fly to distant countries certainly limits
> participation.  One can view that as

Flying to distant countries is required only for voting priveleges. You
only have to attend two of the three annual meetings, and you can
designate someone else to attend for you to meet that requirement. If
you're lucky, the meetings might be in your country, or in a place you'd
like to visit. Associate membership, which carries all of the same
priveleges except the ability to vote, only requires the membership fee.
I'm going on memory here, so I may have some of the details wrong - I
can't connect to the web site I used to locate that information.

> Good:  Only the most committed people get to directly influence the
> Standard.  Time is not wasted on dilletantes.

That is a very real advantage, though not enough in itself to justify
this situation.

> A necessary evil:  While broader participation might be desirable,
> face-to-face participation is needed to efficiently discuss and settle
> issues.

I think it falls under the necessary evil heading, but not just on those
grounds. There's also the fact that there's no significant external
funding for the standards organizations; the membership fees provide a
signficant fraction of their operating expenses. Selling copies of the
final standard (which isn't exactly a mass-market operation) provides
most (all?) of the rest.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <fbc37fef.0203291740.381b9ee3@posting.google.com>, Beman
Dawes <beman_d@yahoo.com> writes
>The committee, with the help of the comp.std.c++ moderators, did
>provide a short-cut way of submitting Defect Reports. That seems to
>have worked quite well.  Perhaps a similar comp.std.c++ mechanism can
>be set up for proposals.  But proposals are a lot more complex that
>Defect Reports; they are much harder to write and most require a
>committment from the proposer to carry the proposal forward over time.

Exactly, that is why a proposal needs a sponsor. It is rare that any but
the most trivial of proposals has everything right and deals with all
contingent issues at first visit. The 'owner' of a proposal should be
willing and able to refine it in the light of criticism. That means they
need to be available where the most intense examination of it will
happen.


--
Francis Glassborow
Check out the ACCU Spring Conference 2002
4 Days, 4 tracks, 4+ languages, World class speakers
For details see: http://www.accu.org/events/public/accu0204.htm

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:46:47 GMT, Francis Glassborow
<francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[...]
>
>Exactly, that is why a proposal needs a sponsor. It is rare that any but
>the most trivial of proposals has everything right and deals with all
>contingent issues at first visit. The 'owner' of a proposal should be
>willing and able to refine it in the light of criticism. That means they
>need to be available where the most intense examination of it will
>happen.

Yes, you're perfectly right; anyhow an attitude that I often notice
towards proposals or pseudo-proposals posted on comp.std.c++ is a sort
of good-natured conceit (I hope it's the right term; I'm not a native
english speaker and it's not my intention to offend anyone):
unfortunately not all of us have (or can have) the degree of
competence of the committee members, and it's often the case that a
probably good idea is erroneusly or unclearly expressed; in these
cases I have never seen an aswer inviting to reformulate the proposal
or suggesting possible improvements; in other words there's no
criticism at all, except for the one implicit in the absence of
answers.

I want to emphasize that I have no polemic intent (who knows my
posting here can say this is not my way of doing)... just a comment I
hope useful to everybody. I'm firmly convinced that a great (if not
the greatest) wealth of the C++ language in a broad sense is the
existence of a large community that discusses, criticize and improve
the language itself, which is a thing I don't know any other language
can boast of.

Genny.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
> I've mentioned this to Mr. Terekhov before: having an impact on the standard
> depends mostly on making cogent technical arguments, patiently explaining
> your position, and building consensus. It's great exercise: I continue to
> learn much about working with people with widely varying needs and
> viewpoints from my participation in the committee.

The fact thay you have mentioned something to me does not
make it any worse (or better ;-)). Personally, I am NOT in
business of writing standards, compilers, libraries, etc.
I am just an application programmer. In a way, I am your
(C++ committee) "average" *customer*. That's it. All I want
is just a place/process where I could provide you with some
{early} feedback AND the ability to watch the technical
discussions -- the way how and why did you come to this
or that decision. I am NOT interested in "law and politics"
you seem to be occasionally busy playing over there. ;-)
I guess that the company I am working for (IBM) have
enough people on the *payroll* to do it. Nor am I
interested in things like:

http://www.boost.org/people/dave_abrahams.htm

"...Boost Consulting, a company dedicated to providing
 professional support and development services for the
 Boost C++ libraries and associated tools. "

This link and the quote out of context is NOT meant
to be some sort of a personal attack. I have no problems
with things like that. I just want to point out that
anyone working at some committee/boost.org/etc... HAS
some reasons and interest to do it -- it could be part
of their business (things they make money from, I mean
career, books, consulting, etc) and that's just fine.

But there are other folks, like me, out there, who want
to be heard and have some little influence too, despite
a rather limited abilities (and desires) to participate
in that "formal" process as it is (in my view) right now.

Personally, I would strongly encourage you to look
at the POSIX (Open Group) standardization process.

The point I was trying to make (with copy&paste in
my previous message here) is that it should be possible
to separate the actual technical work (and flow of
promptly feedback from the community, that I am
personally mostly interested in) from that rather
bureaucratic/"expensive"/"heavy-travelling"/nasty-
law-and-politics/etc "committee" form of doing it.

POSIX standardization process (Open Group like thing,
I mean) is really "the right way to go", I think.

regards,
alexander.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:38:13 GMT, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>
wrote:

> I am just an application programmer. In a way, I am your
> (C++ committee) "average" *customer*. That's it.

Don't degrade yourself.  If there were no application programmers,
there would be no programming languages.

> All I want
> is just a place/process where I could provide you with some
> {early} feedback

Right here is a very good place.

> AND the ability to watch the technical
> discussions -- the way how and why did you come to this
> or that decision.

That may be asking too much.  You can get it for the price
of membership.  It might be nice to have all of the flame
wars in the committee mailing lists archived for public
view, but that would only help those of us who want to
learn from it.  Making it public could hinder those involved.

I feel that I am responsible for some small wording in the
standard.  Myabe not.  I know that I asked questions in this
group which were not answered in this group.  I did find the
answer in the next draft.

I make no claim that the committee gives positive or even
negative feedback to thoughts expressed in this newsgroup,
but they do seem to listen.  I don't think that it is any
worse than "Hey that's a neat idea. (underbreath, we will
ignore it)".

John

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <3CA60E91.7FA03202@web.de>, Alexander Terekhov
<terekhov@web.de> writes
> All I want
>is just a place/process where I could provide you with some
>{early} feedback AND the ability to watch the technical
>discussions -- the way how and why did you come to this
>or that decision.

But providing that is very expensive in human resources.

Let me give you an example.

During the process of producing the current standard an occasion arose
where the author of a paper on a highly technical point was unable to
'defend' it in person (because he was chairing another group at that
time, and sometimes no amount of careful reorganisation can prevent
clashes) He spent two hours on the evening before giving me a one-to-one
tutorial so that I would understand the issues well enough to support
his proposal through the work group.

Now the people in that work group were all experts, but it had still
taken 2 hours to brief me, and I was supposed to be reasonably
knowledgeable in that aspect of C++.

How do we relay such discussions etc. to a wider audience?

Then there is the matter of talking in short-hand (without which we
could never get through the work load that we do.)

I can remember an incident when we were discussing something to do with
copy ctors and use. Andy Koenig came into the room to notify us of
something else, noted the trend of the discussion and wrote the
following on the whiteboard:
i, j;
It showed us how to resolve our problem but to explain that to you would
take longer than I have to spare.

In simple terms, we either do the job to the best of our ability or
spend time explaining, we do not have time to do both. Nonetheless we do
try to explain but not always in the detail that some would like. And
sometimes we make mistakes and some of those are very difficult to
correct.


--
Francis Glassborow
Check out the ACCU Spring Conference 2002
4 Days, 4 tracks, 4+ languages, World class speakers
For details see: http://www.accu.org/events/public/accu0204.htm

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Francis Glassborow wrote:

>
> ... because the final document is a US standard as is,
> rather than the US adopting an ISO standard.

Actually, it is the other way, for C and C++. J16 (the ANSI
technical committee) does not submit the draft standard to ANSI.
WG21 (the ISO committee) submits the draft standard to ISO to be
approved and issued as an International Standard. ANSI then asks
its members to vote on whether to adopt the IS as an ANSI standard.

The resulting ANSI standard is the ISO document with an ANSI
logo added to the cover page.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com> wrote in message news:<3ca082ea$0$3152$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...

> So you consider it elitist to shell out thousands of dollars, and hundreds
> of hours, a year, just to have a CHANCE to influence a few issues (out of
> hundreds) in the revision of a programming language standard?

Leaving aside the inflamatory term "elitism", the requirement to spend
thousands of dollars and fly to distant countries certainly limits
participation.  One can view that as

Good:  Only the most committed people get to directly influence the
Standard.  Time is not wasted on dilletantes.

A necessary evil:  While broader participation might be desirable,
face-to-face participation is needed to efficiently discuss and settle
issues.

Bad:  By limiting participation, good ideas are lost and the will of
the majority is not represented.

In this case, I think comittee members are open to input from the
wider C++ community, limiting the bad aspects of the current system.
But limiting direct participation only to those willing and able to
spend large amounts of money will cause some to feel shut out of the
process.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message news:<3C9EE216.FCC1FC10@web.de>...

> > It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings. [...]
>
> And what is the price to take a look at this, for example:
>
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/

Free, for the most part.  See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/

The "mailings" for most practical purposes are the same as the
"papers".  The only significant difference I can think of is that the
mailings sometimes includes a copy of the standard itself, such as a
recent version with technical corrections applied.  Each mailing used
to include the current working paper, but that stopped in 1999 when
the standard was finished

--Beman Dawes

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:
>
> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message news:3C9EE216.FCC1FC10@web.de...
>
> > > It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings. [...]
> >
> > And what is the price to take a look at this, for example:
> >
> > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/
> > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/
> >
> > <?>
>
> Since you have a *.de e-mail address, you should probably ask DIN.
> Maybe nothing (other than a bit of work). You are also welcome to
> join J16, in which case the price is the same dues all the rest of
> us pay to participate.
>
> > FYI (something having to do with the standards and/but
> > being a bit more "open", and less "pricey", I think):
> >
> > http://www.opengroup.org
> > http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sure, good bunch. But if you want to influence ISO standards, you
> have to play by ISO rules.

< copy&paste from the 2nd link above >

The Austin Common Standards Revision Group (CSRG) is a joint technical
working group established to consider the matter of a common revision of
ISO/IEC 9945-1, ISO/IEC 9945-2, IEEE Std 1003.1, IEEE Std 1003.2 and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the appropriate parts of the Single UNIX Specification.

The approach to specification development is "write once, adopt
everywhere", with the deliverables being a set of specifications that
will
carry both the IEEE POSIX designation and The Open Group's Technical
Standard designation, and if adopted an ISO/IEC designation. The new set
of
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
specifications will form the core of the Single UNIX Specification
Version
3, with delivery in Q2 2001

This unique development combines both the industry led efforts and the
formal standardization activities into a single initiative, and includes
a wide spectrum of participants.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
....
Invitation To Participate

Anyone wishing to participate in the Austin Group should contact the
chair
with their requests. There are no fees for participation or membership.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You may participate as an observer or as a contributor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You do not have to attend face-to-face meetings to participate,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
electronic participation is most welcome.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please subscribe to our Mailing list.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Also, FYI:

http://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_subscribers.tpl?listid=2481

"Subscribers to list austin-group-l

 750 direct subscribers"
 ^^^

regards,
alexander.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Dirk Gerrits wrote:

>>I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
>>ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
>>to expect
>>it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
>>(I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
>>simple), etc.
>>
>
> You might find this an interesting read:
> The New C++: The Group of Seven - Extensions under Consideration for the C++
> Standard Library
> by Herb Sutter
> http://www.cuj.com/experts/2004/sutter.htm


I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have not
heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next changes
to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few instead of by
a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing proposals.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <3C9C14C5.5070801@earthlink.net>, Edward Diener
<eldiener@earthlink.net> writes
>I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
>C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have
>not heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the
>right time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
>somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next
>changes to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few
>instead of by a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing
>proposals.

I don't think it works exactly like that. WG21 is composed of
delegations from a number of ISO NB who are voting members of the
relevant committee (I think that is SC22, but it might be the one above
that.) This is not free and National Bodies fork out quite a bit of cash
for participation. The other committee directly involved is ANSI (or is
it NCITS now) J16 for which companies pay for the right to vote.

In reality the committees will always listen to good ideas but as no one
pays us to do the work, those things will be done that one or more
attendees are interested in. If you want a change the only way to ensure
that it is fully explored is to attend the meetings, even then you will
have to persuade a substantial majority that the change is worth the
costs. If you cannot do so yourself, I am sure there are several people
who would do so on your behalf if you covered their costs (about $2-3000
per meeting)


--
Francis Glassborow
Check out the ACCU Spring Conference 2002
4 Days, 4 tracks, 4+ languages, World class speakers
For details see: http://www.accu.org/events/public/accu0204.htm

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Edward Diener" <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3C9C14C5.5070801@earthlink.net...

> I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
> C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have not
> heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
> time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
> somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next changes
> to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few instead of by
> a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing proposals.

It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings.
We'll be in Curacao in a few weeks. But if you choose not to participate
at that level, you'd better shop around for an active member to champion
any proposals you might have. Two weeks of committee time per year can
handle only so much input.

Elitism isn't what it used to be.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Edward Diener" <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C9C14C5.5070801@earthlink.net...
> Dirk Gerrits wrote:
 > You might find this an interesting read:
> > The New C++: The Group of Seven - Extensions under Consideration for the
C++
> > Standard Library
> > by Herb Sutter
> > http://www.cuj.com/experts/2004/sutter.htm
>
>
> I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
> C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have not
> heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
> time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
> somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next changes
> to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few instead of by
> a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing proposals.

Search the archive for this newgroup for the topic "C++ 0x" - you'll find
several hundred messages in the last few months.  All of those threads are
discussions of proposed new features for C++.  If you have something to
propose, post it here - discussion will ensue.

Good proposals survive - that's where that "Group of Seven" came from.
There's nothing particularly special about the Group of Seven either - they
just happen to be the first seven proposals presented to the committee.

-cd


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

P.J. Plauger wrote:

> "Edward Diener" <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3C9C14C5.5070801@earthlink.net...
>
>
>>I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
>>C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have not
>>heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
>>time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
>>somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next changes
>>to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few instead of by
>>a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing proposals.
>>
>
> It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings.
> We'll be in Curacao in a few weeks. But if you choose not to participate
> at that level, you'd better shop around for an active member to champion
> any proposals you might have. Two weeks of committee time per year can
> handle only so much input.
>


Once again I am very disappointed that the C++ committee has no formal
means by which a proposal can be made. Neither I, not your average C++
programming professional, has the time to run around the world to
meetings. Nor am I eager to "shop around" for a member to represent a
proposal which I my want to make, however this is supposed to be done.

I have much faith in the abilities of the current members to make good
decisions and deal fairly with proposals, but to have a system which
essentially excludes the C++ community is not my idea of a decent
process and it may well lead to an omission of valuable ideas for the
C++ language.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<9S1KzBBF$Rn8EwHH@robinton.ntlworld.com>...
[SNIP]
 WG21 is composed of
> delegations from a number of ISO NB who are voting members of the
> relevant committee (I think that is SC22, but it might be the one above
> that.) This is not free and National Bodies fork out quite a bit of cash
> for participation. The other committee directly involved is ANSI (or is
> it NCITS now) J16 for which companies pay for the right to vote.

Isn't ANSI/NCITS just another ISO NB ? At least in theory?
( In practice they outnumber the other delegations. )

Regards,
--
Michiel Salters

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <cefd6cde.0203250055.6adc66f@posting.google.com>, Michiel
Salters <Michiel.Salters@cmg.nl> writes
>Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<9S1KzBBF$Rn8EwHH@robinton.ntlworld.com>...
>[SNIP]
> WG21 is composed of
>> delegations from a number of ISO NB who are voting members of the
>> relevant committee (I think that is SC22, but it might be the one above
>> that.) This is not free and National Bodies fork out quite a bit of cash
>> for participation. The other committee directly involved is ANSI (or is
>> it NCITS now) J16 for which companies pay for the right to vote.
>
>Isn't ANSI/NCITS just another ISO NB ? At least in theory?
>( In practice they outnumber the other delegations. )

Yes and No. J16 hold collocated technical meetings with WG21, when WG21
has a vote and on purely ISO procedural issues J16 HoD has just the US
vote, but on technical issues there is a separate J16 vote alongside the
WG21 vote. If the two go different ways we make an extra effort to
resolve the issue because the final document is a US standard as is,
rather than the US adopting an ISO standard. (Any NB can always have a
purely local standard but it would be unfortunate for that to happen for
C++)

--
Francis Glassborow
Check out the ACCU Spring Conference 2002
4 Days, 4 tracks, 4+ languages, World class speakers
For details see: http://www.accu.org/events/public/accu0204.htm

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Francis Glassborow" <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Zj8Tv7UgF1n8EwAk@robinton.ntlworld.com...

> >Isn't ANSI/NCITS just another ISO NB ? At least in theory?
> >( In practice they outnumber the other delegations. )
>
> Yes and No. J16 hold collocated technical meetings with WG21, when WG21
> has a vote and on purely ISO procedural issues J16 HoD has just the US
> vote, but on technical issues there is a separate J16 vote alongside the
> WG21 vote. If the two go different ways we make an extra effort to
> resolve the issue because the final document is a US standard as is,
> rather than the US adopting an ISO standard. (Any NB can always have a
> purely local standard but it would be unfortunate for that to happen for
> C++)

That was true for a while, but in recent years

:                                 it is a custom
: More honour'd in the breach than the observance

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:
>
> "Edward Diener" <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3C9C14C5.5070801@earthlink.net...
>
> > I thought this was supposed to be an open process where anyone from the
> > C++ community could submit a proposal for a change to C++ but I have not
> > heard anything about doing this officially. Isn't it about the right
> > time for the means to do so to be published to the C++ community
> > somewhere easily accessible. I would hate to think that the next changes
> > to the C++ standard were to be determined by an elite few instead of by
> > a fairly democratic process of accepting and reviewing proposals.
>
> It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings. [...]

And what is the price to take a look at this, for example:

http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/

<?>

FYI (something having to do with the standards and/but
being a bit more "open", and less "pricey", I think):

http://www.opengroup.org
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/

> Elitism isn't what it used to be.

This is what it IS:

> We'll be in Curacao in a few weeks. But if you choose not to participate
> at that level, you'd better shop around for an active member to champion
> any proposals you might have.

IMHO.

regards,
alexander.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <3C9DEE03.2000506@earthlink.net>, Edward Diener
<eldiener@earthlink.net> writes
>I have much faith in the abilities of the current members to make good
>decisions and deal fairly with proposals, but to have a system which
>essentially excludes the C++ community is not my idea of a decent
>process and it may well lead to an omission of valuable ideas for the
>C++ language.

I wonder if you realise how badly stretched our manpower resources are?
Under ANSI rules drafts have to go for public review and every public
comment has to have a response. Even that nearly brings J16 (and I think
J11) to its knees certainly much other work grinds to a halt while we
try to make responses that are a bit more meaningful than 'Thanks for
sharing that with us.'

The make up of the Committees include a substantial minority who do not
even have a public company behind them. This is even more the case when
you look at the many people involved at National level.

It is easy to make a proposal, making a well founded one that allows for
the many problems that will usually exist is much harder. Would you be
happy with making a proposal and receiving a response 'Thanks, we
discussed that but decided not to proceed.' ? I thought not. But would
you like to get a response to your proposal 'Thanks, but it took so long
explaining to those in line in front of you why their proposals were
unsuitable that we never got round to yours?'

Instead of bemoaning the fact that we have limited resources and that
the present mechanism might result in worthwhile proposals being
forgotten, let me turn it round.

Currently we have one of the most open mechanisms for handling potential
defects available anywhere. Let us ask for something similar to be
available for extensions. If WG21/J16 list the extensions they have
considered and marked which they have accepted, which they have rejected
and those that are pending, individuals will be able to raise those that
are missing by posting to this forum. Such a post will act as a
reminder, but if you cannot be sufficiently persuasive here so that a
committee member picks it up then I think the idea should die, however
much you personally like it.


--
Francis Glassborow
Check out the ACCU Spring Conference 2002
4 Days, 4 tracks, 4+ languages, World class speakers
For details see: http://www.accu.org/events/public/accu0204.htm

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Michiel Salters" <Michiel.Salters@cmg.nl> wrote in message news:cefd6cde.0203250055.6adc66f@posting.google.com...

> Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<9S1KzBBF$Rn8EwHH@robinton.ntlworld.com>...
> [SNIP]
>  WG21 is composed of
> > delegations from a number of ISO NB who are voting members of the
> > relevant committee (I think that is SC22, but it might be the one above
> > that.) This is not free and National Bodies fork out quite a bit of cash
> > for participation. The other committee directly involved is ANSI (or is
> > it NCITS now) J16 for which companies pay for the right to vote.
>
> Isn't ANSI/NCITS just another ISO NB ? At least in theory?
> ( In practice they outnumber the other delegations. )

Correct. The twice-annual meetings are ``co-located'' meetings of ANSI J16
and WG21. (The politically correct term has been used instead of ``joint''
for several years, ever since one person raised a minor protest at one
meeting about whether or not joint meetings were permissible.) But in the
end, all resolutions are approved by WG21, and ANSI J16 gets one vote
within WG21, just like every other national body that sends a delegation
to the meeting.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Steve Clamage" <clamage@eng.sun.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.0203201423070.28261-100000@taumet...
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Larry wrote:
> > I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
> > ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
> > to expect
> > it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
> > (I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
> > simple), etc.
> >
> >  Thanks
> >
> > ---
> > [ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting
with ]
> > [ your news-reader.  If that fails, use
lto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
> > [              --- Please see the FAQ before
             ]
> > [ FAQ:
arch.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]
> >                         ^
>                           |
>                           |
> If you had looked at the FAQ before posting (hint, hint) you
> would have seen links to the information you are asking for.

Only one problem.  The link to the FAQ above takes you to an "Error 404,
page not found".



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message news:3C9EE216.FCC1FC10@web.de...

> > It's very democratic and open. Just pay your dues and come to the meetings. [...]
>
> And what is the price to take a look at this, for example:
>
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/prot/
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/
>
> <?>

Since you have a *.de e-mail address, you should probably ask DIN.
Maybe nothing (other than a bit of work). You are also welcome to
join J16, in which case the price is the same dues all the rest of
us pay to participate.

> FYI (something having to do with the standards and/but
> being a bit more "open", and less "pricey", I think):
>
> http://www.opengroup.org
> http://www.opengroup.org/austin/

Sure, good bunch. But if you want to influence ISO standards, you
have to play by ISO rules.

> > Elitism isn't what it used to be.
>
> This is what it IS:
>
> > We'll be in Curacao in a few weeks. But if you choose not to participate
> > at that level, you'd better shop around for an active member to champion
> > any proposals you might have.

So you consider it elitist to shell out thousands of dollars, and hundreds
of hours, a year, just to have a CHANCE to influence a few issues (out of
hundreds) in the revision of a programming language standard? From the online
Merriam-Webster, the elite are ``a group of persons who by virtue of position
or education exercise much power or influence,'' and elitism is ``the
leadership or rule by an elite.'' I did not acquire my membership in J16 from
my father, or by showing my Ph.D. diploma, nor did anybody else I know on the
committee. Doesn't sound very elitist to me. Committed yes, elitist no.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:

> But if you want to influence ISO standards, you have to play by ISO rules.

How does one join the ISO Rules Committee?

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Witless" <witless@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3CA0F764.594E2C89@attbi.com...

> > But if you want to influence ISO standards, you have to play by ISO rules.
>
> How does one join the ISO Rules Committee?

Well, the practical answer is that you go to a lot of meetings. F'rinstance,
in my years as Convener of WG14, I was obliged to attend an annual plenary
meeting of SC22. Sometimes we got to make a few rules, like the meeting in
Finland where we hammered out the current Defect Report regimen. I was also
expected to attend what amounts to a pre-meeting caucus of the US delegation
to the plenary. Not much rule-making there. Other, more active standards
types I know go to still more meetings so they can attend the odd JTC1
meeting as part of the US delegation. (JTC1 is the parent of SC22, which
in turn is the parent of WG14 (C) and WG21 (C++), among other language
committees.) Above that level, I've had only the briefest of interactions
with functionaries in Geneva, who work in the anterooms of God, presumably.
IIRC, the outermost crystal sphere is driven by a UN treaty approved many
years ago by a whole bunch of nations.

The higher you go, the less you're directly involved with actual standards
and the more you're involved in process, procedures, policy, and other
abstract P words. Even SC22 leaves all technical decisions to the WGs. And
everything I've seen works by consensus, which is one of the most strenuous
processes I know for forming decisions -- but also one of the most robust.
You'll always be heard, but you won't necessarily be obeyed.

So you have to decide what rules you want to influence and how much effort
you're willing to invest to try. I can tell you that I've been doing
standards work for 32 years now. Over that time, I've clocked approximately
16 months [sic] attending meetings, which involves about four months of
sitting in windowless hotel ballrooms and such all around the world,
mostly listening to other people talk. In my peak year, I clocked seven
weeks of meetings on three continents, and typed about a million words of
standards documents. Jet lag and tendonitis. In trade for all that, I can
probably make a list of minor achievements, both in what several standards
say and in how people now go about making new ones. None of it will be
usable in my obituary if it appears in the Boston Globe.

YMMV.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
to expect
it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
(I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
simple), etc.

 Thanks

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Larry" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fa148c36.0203201043.4a04e12c@posting.google.com...
> I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
> ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
> to expect
> it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
> (I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
> simple), etc.

As was pointed out in another very recent thread, you might want to check
out the papers at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/ to see
what the committee's been up to.

-cd


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

> I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
> ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
> to expect
> it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
> (I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
> simple), etc.

You might find this an interesting read:
The New C++: The Group of Seven - Extensions under Consideration for the C++
Standard Library
by Herb Sutter
http://www.cuj.com/experts/2004/sutter.htm

Regards,

Dirk Gerrits


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Larry wrote:
> I'm looking for web sites or other sources of information of what the
> ISO commitee is up to, what to expect in the next C++ standard, when
> to expect
> it and so on. Also, maybe an english translation of the new standards
> (I'm joking, it's in english, but you know give it to me plain and
> simple), etc.
>
>  Thanks
>
> ---
> [ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
> [ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
> [              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
> [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]
>                         ^
                          |
                          |
If you had looked at the FAQ before posting (hint, hint) you
would have seen links to the information you are asking for.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]