In article <3vpha1$nl6@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
> Would you be willing to tape record (or video tape) the meeting...???
> then I or others can have the tapes transcribed into text...

That's an interesting thought -- I don't know if there are any ANSI or
ISO rules that address recording meetings.  And I'm not sure how useful
it would be since it would be very difficult to know who said what,
or, depending on the quality of the recording, even what was said.

> >Representatives whose names are in square
> >brackets are people who usually come to meetings but were not in
> >attendence in Denmark.
>
> Do you suppose the travel costs kept people away...???
>  Are any of those people handicapped...???
>   would equal access prevent them from attending...???

It's hard to know.  Usual problems are work schedules, travel budget
freezes, and corporate policies about overseas travel.

> >Convex                          [Randy Meyer]
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Not the same as Randy Meyers below...???

No.  This is one of the things that gives the Secretary fits.  Since
the minutes usually identifies people by their last name, Derek Jones
from the UK and I create a similar problem.  (When Bill Plauger was
Secretary, he dubbed me "Jones the Greater" and Derek "Jones the
Lesser", but Derek object and requested that he be referred to instead
as "Jones the Less Than or Equal To".)

> To clarify...voting above gets a Yes if the person has attended 2 of
> the last 3 meetings...???....is that the rule...???

Membership in ANSI is by company -- voting is yes if the company has
applied for voting membership, paid all the relevent fees, and been
represented at 2 of the last three meetings (counting the current
meeting).

> Did you miss something...???
>
>  What is the country for P.J. Plauger....???
>
>  Also, P. J. Plauger is not listed in the first list...

Bill is no longer a member of X3J11.  As Convener of WG14, his job is to
moderate and facilitate.  As I understand it (other J11/WG14 members
please correct me if I'm wrong), he does not represent any country and
has no vote.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid?  Well MINE are even WORSE!
-- Calvin

In article <3vp7md$nl6@News1.mcs.net>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:

> If another company or other companies implement the class library
> as described in the standard, then can they take advantage of the
> free advertising that you noted above and have their names embossed
> on each copy of the standard...???

I think Plauger gets mentioned because the standards folks liked his
*prose* so much that they decided to save themselves some work and use
it for the standard, citing Plauger's name in return. The fact that he
also wrote C++ code is irrelevant, since the C++ standard doesn't
talk about implementations.

If *you* had been around at the right time and written nicer prose,
maybe your name would have been on each copy of the standard. As it
turns out, it isn't. Tough.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both,
and deserve neither.                                       --- Thomas Jefferson

In article 4vk@deneb.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de, Anselm Lingnau <lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> writes:
>In article <3vp7md$nl6@News1.mcs.net>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>> If another company or other companies implement the class library
>> as described in the standard, then can they take advantage of the
>> free advertising that you noted above and have their names embossed
>> on each copy of the standard...???
>
>I think Plauger gets mentioned because the standards folks liked his
>*prose* so much that they decided to save themselves some work and use
>it for the standard, citing Plauger's name in return. The fact that he
>also wrote C++ code is irrelevant, since the C++ standard doesn't
>talk about implementations.

Let me interrupt this discussion with a few facts.

The library sections of the draft had been written by many different
hands in many different styles, much of which was not couched in
language suitable for a standard. P. J. Plauger volunteered to rewrite
the entire set of library chapters (as they then existed) in a consistent
style suitable for inclusion in the standard, and he did so.

Plauger also used the work he did as the basis of a book which was
subsequently published. Having written the material on his own,
Plauger owned the copyright to what he wrote (unless he later transferred
it to his publisher). The copyright acknowledgement on the cover of
the draft standard merely referred to an existing fact.

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

In article <3vtp5c$m5t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:

> Let me interrupt this discussion with a few facts.
> [facts deleted]

This is just about what I thought the real story would be. Sorry if my
guesses seemed misleading.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Sometimes backward compatibility is good.  Other times it's just backward.
                                                              --- Charlie Gibbs

In article <3v8qjg$amq@yage.tembel.org>, shields@tembel.org says...
>
>In article <3v4o8p$843@News1.mcs.net>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>> This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop
>>
>>       Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
>>               \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/
>>
>> The cycle or loop is very simple...
>>
>> Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
>>       there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
>>       government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
>>       are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
>>       are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
>>       sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
>>       company...
>
>Are you saying that researchers, schools, governments, ministers, and
>representatives of other groups should lead lives totally distinct from
>the "business world"?
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Absolutely not...What I am saying is that if a person is going to play
in the business world then they should do so under the terms of the
rules dictated by that world. I have no problem with a professor owning
a company that sells a product or a service, I do have a problem with
a professor who spends time influencing business decisions and THEN
when he/she is asked to be accountable for those actions he/she says...

 "OH...I am just a professor at XYZ institution..."
  "...I am not legally responsible..."

Many people in the business world learn to wear many hats...some teach
part-time, some do government work, and some are ministers...BUT, when
they engage in business activities, the protections of their "institutions"
must be removed...otherwise, we might as well all found "The Church of C++"
and stop paying taxes...let's see...we will need a bible or two...


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Do you think there is a place for official standards at all?
>

Absolutely....Standards are very important to help society interoperate
more efficiently and to allow us to move forward....in recent times,
it has been defacto standards which seem to have had the most impact...

For some reason, people think that I am opposed to standards...on
the contrary, I would like to see them produced faster and for more
people to participate in the process and for the standards to be more
widely known....

also, if there are a few people that will reap huge financial rewards
from a standard that they developed, then so be it...my only concern
is that I think it should be openly discussed and a well-known fact...
we should encourage everyone to buy their products because that will
cause the market to quickly rally around their solution and they can
use some of the revenue to improve their technology...with software
customers are like shareholders, they all buy a stake or vested interest
in the software and the people that receive the money are encouraged
to continue improving the software/standard...

The case of C++ is an interesting one, I am not against the current
standard...I would just like to see it finished...completed, etc...
Once this occurs then people will want to look at new horizons...it
is sort of like a car dealer that wants to move last years model...
that causes the customers to look at the new models...we have to get
people (especially educators) looking further down the road...C++ has
overwhelmed them with complexity, but delivered very little in terms
of major advacements...there is life after C++...

>If you are not happy with ISO, please propose changes or a replacement.
>--
>Shields.

One thing that I propose is that ALL committee interaction be archived
on this newsgroup...once that occursm, then other changes can be proposed...
BTW...let's not focus on bandwidth and disk space cost...if you haven't
noticed...1.2 Gig drives have dropped below $300...as far as I know...one
drive can still hold the DRAFT C++ standard....;+)

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3vlsbc$1ui@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
>In article <3v0cac$46g@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>> In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>> >In general, some of the attendees are X3J11 members, some are parts of
>> >official delegations to the WG14 meeting, some are non-members.  X3J11
>> >has an official attendance list referred to above that lists each
>> >member, who they represent, and their membership status (an
>> >organization may have one principal member and as many alternates as
>> >they desire, only one is allowed to vote; members are not entitled to
>> >vote unless a representative has attended at least two of the last
>> >three meetings; observing members are never entitled to vote).  This is
>> >a physical piece of paper that is circulated at the meeting and each
>> >member marks that they are attending and whether they are voting or
>> >not.  A copy of this sheet is attached to the printed minutes, but it
>> >is not included in the electronic copy (sorry).
>> @@@@@@@
>>
>> Is the sheet so cryptic that it can not be translated to ASCII...???
>> Should we scan it an post it on a Web page...???
>>       I have an HP 3C which I will be happy to donate to the cause...:+)
>
>No, but remember that the minutes are really internal documentation.  I
>can understand that you (and undoubtedly others) would prefer complete
>transcripts, but, frankly, that's not our job.  The minutes are
>recorded by a volunteer secretary who, like the rest of the committee,
>has a day job.  Minutes get done in his or her spare time and you get
>what you get.  I'll do my best to pass on the information I get, but
>I'm not about to promise to do more work myself, nor am I going to ask
>other volunteers on the committee to do so.  If you would like to make
>polite suggestions, I would be happy to pass them on.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Would you be willing to tape record (or video tape) the meeting...???
then I or others can have the tapes transcribed into text...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Now, since I'm feeling generous, I will manually transcribe the
>relevent information from the Copenhagen meeting.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You certainly are generous...thanks...
 I think that there are many people around the world that can
 benefit from you open and straight-forward approach...
 Thanks again...
  also...for blind people who read the net via translations
  to speech...they thank you...
  for the handicapped people that read the net using soda
  straws to pick items...they thank you...
 Keep up the good work...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>I've added
>parenthetical comments noting official positions held by various people
>and I've done my best to make sense of the various affiliations listed
>by the WG14 attendees.  Representatives whose names are in square
>brackets are people who usually come to meetings but were not in
>attendence in Denmark.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Do you suppose the travel costs kept people away...???
 Are any of those people handicapped...???
  would equal access prevent them from attending...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Note that the US delegation is made up of a few
>volunteers from X3J11.  Also note that this has very little to do with
>C++ anymore, so I've removed comp.std.c++ from the Newsgroups: above.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

THE C++ ANSI COMMITTEE COULD LEARN A LOT FROM YOUR APPROACH....

NOTE...once more...just in case they missed it...

 THE C++ ANSI COMMITTEE COULD LEARN A LOT FROM YOUR APPROACH....

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Finally, note that X3 has a web page at http://www.x3.org/ with lots of
>information about Information Systems standards, including the member
>lists for all of the subcommittees (e.g. X3J11 and X3J16).
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

GREAT!!!!!! Usenet and the Web...thank whomever did the work....
  they should get credit here...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>X3J11 Member            Voting  Representative
>---------------------   ------  --------------
>Convex                          [Randy Meyer]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Not the same as Randy Meyers below...???
 It would be odd if one attended and one did not
 if they were the same person...note, that in Chicago
 this happens in elections all of the time...but not
 in ISO/ANSI...
>Cray                     Yes    Tom MacDonald   (vice chair)
>DEC Professional         Yes    Rex Jaeschke    (chair)
>Digital Equipment        Yes    Randy Meyers    (acting secretary)
>Farance Inc              Yes    Frank Farance   (ISO project editor)
>Hewlett-Packard          Yes    John Kwan
>IBM Corp                 Yes    Dave Mooney
>Keaton                   Yes    David Keaton
>Motorola                 Yes    Ted Van Sickle
>OSF
>Perennial                Yes    John Benito     (international rep)
>Plum Hall                Yes    Tom Plum        (C++ liason)
>RG Consulting                   [Ron Guilmette]
>SDRC                            [Larry Jones]
>Sun                      Yes    Douglas Walls
>Taligent                 Yes    Jim Thomas
>Tydeman                         [Fred Tydeman]
>Unisys                          [Johnathan Ziebel]
>US Army                         [Doug Gwyn]
>Watcom
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

To clarify...voting above gets a Yes if the person has attended 2 of
the last 3 meetings...???....is that the rule...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>WG14 Member             Representative
>---------------------   --------------
>-                       P. J. Plauger (convener)
>USA                     John Benito
>                        Tom Plum
>                        David Keaton
>                        Frank Farance
>                        Douglas Walls
>Denmark                 Peter Cordsen
>                        Keld Simonson
>Germany                 Jutta Degener
>Netherlands(?)          Ed Keizer
>UK                      Neil Martin
>----
>Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
>larry.jones@sdrc.com
>(Note: news takes forever to get here -- if you want a quick reply, email)
>I don't need to improve!  Everyone ELSE does! -- Calvin
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Did you miss something...???

 What is the country for P.J. Plauger....???

 Also, P. J. Plauger is not listed in the first list...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>
> In article <3vlsbc$1ui@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
> >I've added
> >parenthetical comments noting official positions held by various people
> >and I've done my best to make sense of the various affiliations listed
> >by the WG14 attendees.  Representatives whose names are in square
> >brackets are people who usually come to meetings but were not in
> >attendence in Denmark.
>
> Do you suppose the travel costs kept people away...???

Yes they do.  Considering the large number of people in North America
and the desire to make the meetings efficient by ``co-locating'' WG14
and X3J11 meetings, the balance that was struck a couple years ago was
that 1 out of 3 meetings would be held outside North America (the June
meeting) and the other meetings (February and December) would be held
in North America.  These meetings have been planned 2-3 years in advance.
X3J11 members only need to attend 2 of 3 meetings to maintain their
voting status, so they could avoid the meetings outside of the continent.
No balance could be perfect, but this schedule seemed to be the best
for the members (which come from North America, Europe, and Asia).

>  Are any of those people handicapped...???
>   would equal access prevent them from attending...???

This would not be a factor.  Virtually all the hotels were accessible
via wheelchairs.  Almost all conferences used rooms that accessible
without
steps, or a wheelchair accessible room was available.  In any case, if
this
this is a problem, it's easily rectified by contacting the meeting host.

> >X3J11 Member            Voting  Representative
> >---------------------   ------  --------------
> >Convex                          [Randy Meyer]
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Not the same as Randy Meyers below...???
>  It would be odd if one attended and one did not
>  if they were the same person...note, that in Chicago
>  this happens in elections all of the time...but not
>  in ISO/ANSI...

They are different people.  When they both attend the meeting, we call one
``the singular'' and the other ``the plural'' :-).

> To clarify...voting above gets a Yes if the person has attended 2 of
> the last 3 meetings...???....is that the rule...???

Basically, that is correct.  A voting member can become ineligble if
he/she doesn't respond to several letter ballots (I'm not sure what
the rule is off the top of my head), but this is rarely a factor
considering we have few letter ballots.  Also, you have to pay your
dues (membership: $300, mailing fee: $150 (approx.), international
program fee: $300, total about $750/year).

> >WG14 Member             Representative
> >---------------------   --------------
> >-                       P. J. Plauger (convener)
> >USA                     John Benito
> >                        Tom Plum
> >                        David Keaton
> >                        Frank Farance
> >                        Douglas Walls
> >Denmark                 Peter Cordsen
> >                        Keld Simonson
> >Germany                 Jutta Degener
> >Netherlands(?)          Ed Keizer
> >UK                      Neil Martin
>
> Did you miss something...???
>
>  What is the country for P.J. Plauger....???

The people that are listed next to a country name are the head
of delegation (also known as the International Representative).
Although Bill Plauger is from the US, he doesn't represent the
US nor is he part of the delegation.  He is the Convenor.  His
only (official) responsibility is to assure that meetings are held
and people come to them.  Bill also handles all the administration
tasks (not to mention is technical knowledge and technical
contributions).  Bill does an *excellent* job.  Note that
the Convenor is *not* the chair of the meeting.  An acting chair is
elected at each meeting.

> Also, P. J. Plauger is not listed in the first list...

I don't think Bill is a member of X3J11.  It is not required that the
Convenor be a member of a national body.  Bill doesn't vote in X3J11
(because he's not a member) nor does he vote in WG14 (because the
Convenor can't also be an International Representative).

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

In article <3vbhjt$ron@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk>, shepherd@debussy.sbi.com
says...
>
>In article 843@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>In article <3v34bt$ebb@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk>, shepherd@debussy.sbi.com
>>says...
>>>
>>>In article 46g@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>>
>>>...a few inaccuracies that beg to be corrected:
>>>
>>>>In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>>>>
>>>>Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
>>>>the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
>>>>has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?
>>>
>>>Yes, it is the same Tom Plum.  But, note that Plauger's copyrights do
>>>not prevent you or I (or anyone) from developing their own
implementations
>>>of the standard.  If it did, then everyone developing a C++ compiler--
>>>from Microsoft, to Sun, to Tartan Labs, to GNU--would owe a cut to P. J.
>>>Plauger.  I'm sure any representative of these entities can confirm that
>>>they are not paying Plauger a blessed thing.
>>
>>Do they have to reference the copyright?
>
>No, they do not.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

What about Plum Hall, Inc....???

How does their involvement factor into this?

Do they have to pay P. J. Plauger...???

In future versions of Plauger's book will several vendors be listed
as providing the source code...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>Do they have to get permission to use the copyrighted material?
>
>No, they do not.
>
>>
>>If so, is that permission granted freely to everyone?
>
>The permission to develop one's own implementation of the standard
>is indeed granted freely to everyone.  In a similar vein, I believe
>ISO has a standard for the Metric System, and that standard is copyrighted;
>but, you don't have to get permission from them to make your own ruler!
>
>>       If so, what is the purpose of having a copyright?
>
>The copyright protects:
>        1. P.J. Plauger's prose description of the standard library.
>        2. P.J. Plauger's implementation of the standard library.
>
>So, you could not re-use his descriptions or implementation without
>getting his permission or paying him a fee; this is the purpose of
>the copyright.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

How much are those fees...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>The copyright does not, however, prevent you from developing your own
>implementation of the standard, or from writing your own descriptions
>of it.
>
@@@@@@@

Sounds good....(see below)...

@@@@@@@
>>
>>BTW, what does the copyright cover?
>>       Class names?
>
>No.
@@@@@@

Good...I also assume that the inheritance hierarchies are not covered..???

@@@@@@
>
>>       Member function (method) names?
>
>No.
>
@@@@@@

Good...

@@@@@@

>>       Just the documentation?
>
>Yes.
>
@@@@@@

OK..So if Plauger says....

 "Instances of the class String are used to represent...."

then, others have to write...

 "The class String supports instances which represent..."

>>
>>Another poster claimed that ANSI and ISO hold the copyright. Has it
>>been transferred?
>
>P.J. Plauger has given ANSI/ISO permission to use some stuff that he
>wrote; they didn't pay him anything for this--and indeed, he should have
>paid *them*, for the publicity of having his name embossed on every copy
>of the standard that gets sold.
>
@@@@@@@@@

How did ANSI decide to provide this "billboard" at no charge...???

Were other class libraries considered...???

@@@@@@@@@

>The copyright hasn't been transferred per se--he is still selling the
>same prose as part of his book, "The Annotated Draft C++ Standard Library."
>But Jim, he doesn't own the class or member names--why can't you get
>that straight???  His copyrights cannot and will not prevent the free
>development of C++ implementations.
>
>
>---
>Marc Shepherd
>Salomon Brothers Inc
>shepherd@schubert.sbi.com       <<These are my opinions, not my
employer's.>>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I understand your points...I have another question...

If another company or other companies implement the class library
as described in the standard, then can they take advantage of the
free advertising that you noted above and have their names embossed
on each copy of the standard...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3v6rar$sri@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ffarance@aol.com says...
>
>> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>>
>> >> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>> [snip]
[snip]
>> ...
>> It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
>> communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
>> many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
>> people to one place.
>
>Just because you have a communication tool, doesn't mean that it
>helps.  Usenet isn't ideal because of the transient nature and
>low quality discussion.  Nor is it useful because it isn't clear
>that the participants are representative.  Another feature that
>makes it a poor vehicle is that it requires full-time monitoring
>and discussion.  Sometimes, especially in standards work, you
>can't get an answer to a question in 24 hours because you have
>other work to do at your job.  WG14 meetings are scheduled 2-3
>years in advance so that people can schedule appropriately.  With
>Robert's Rules of Order, an agenda, and regularly scheduled
>meetings in advance, you can make much progress (it's been
>demonstrated over the past 100 years).
>
>The Usenet forum is more of a free-for-all that doesn't
>fit within this structure.  Until Usenet demonstrates that it
>can satisfy the quality requirements *and* be supportive of
>the standards process, it won't be a candidate as the primary
>mechanism for communication.
>
[snip]
>-FF
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
>E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
>ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor
@@@@@@@@@@

Thanks for your comments...

 I found your comments about Usenet very interesting. You clearly
 have an attitude that people who post in Usenet do not engage
 in the same level or quality of discussions that you have in
 your private, inefficient, out-moded but most importantly highly
 controlled forums...

I think the people that use the Internet and Usenet as a whole have more
potential than you give them credit. Maybe, as one of the leaders of the
C standards movement, you can help lead the Usenet users in a direction
where you think they should head....

 ...of course this could become a full-time job and it might
 require commitment and representation...some things which you
 claim others do not have but for some reason you imply that
 you do have...even though you would not use a communication
 tool like Usenet because the *other* people lack this level of
 commitment...

It appears to me that Usenet is too powerful for you and rather than
allow others to use it...you dismiss it and stick to your out-moded
paper, pencil and meeting methods...I do not think the users of the
Internet (and Usenet) will buy your suggestions...

 ...Usenet is Useful...try Using it each day...:-)

@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3v6rb6$srn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ffarance@aol.com says...
>
>> From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
>>
>> > First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
>> > available.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain that they will, at least for the C++ committee.
>>
>> The membership list is an ordinary document and all those documents
>> are available to anyone who wants to purchase a copy.  If nothing else,
>> every pre-meeting mailing has a membership list in it.
>
>The JTC1 TAG membership and X3 membership (i.e., corporate membership)
>are public documents.  However, the technical committee (TC) membership
>(e.g., X3J11 and X3J16) are not publicly available.  X3 might consider
>making TC membership list available in the future (representative's
>name, company affiliation, membership status: primary, alternate,
>additional alternate, observer), i.e., the same information that appears
>inside an ANSI standard, but it won't make address, telephone
>number, or E-mail address available for privacy reasons (e.g., avoiding
>junk mail, reselling address lists).
>
@@@@@@

I do not think that anyone would want or need telephone numbers or
e-mail addresses...

The following headings would be a good start...

NAME         COMPANY        COUNTRY WHERE COMPANY IS DOMICILED
----         -------        ----------------------------------

Also, the citizenship of the individual would be handy especially in
the cases where people can be representing one country with respect
to ISO and a different foreign company with respect to ANSI.

What is most critical in the process is that the public understand
who is representing what interest and what companies and/or countries
are going to be responsible for this individuals' actions.

This will help prevent the standards committee from describing the
state of the world one way while their corporate attorneys describe
the world a different way. This sort of thing results in requiring the
courts or the Justice Department to sort out these matters...

@@@@@@

>X3 will rent mailing lists as long as they understand (and approve
>of) the purpose and the content (I think you send them the mailing
>with postage and they apply the mailing labels).  Voting status
>(e.g., 2/3 meeting eligibility, warning letters on letter ballots,
>etc.) will be maintained by the TCs -- X3 has no plans on
>distributing this.  I confirmed this today with Jean Paul at X3.
>
>X3J16 may choose to distribute this information.  However, it is not
>required by X3 and X3 won't distribute it.
>
>-FF
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
>E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
>ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor
@@@@@@@@

BTW...what are the annual membership fees...???

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3vaqnk$f1s@deneb.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>,
lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de says...
>
>In article <3v4ie6$843@News1.mcs.net>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>[Lots of confusion about the C++ standard and P. J. Plauger's book
>containing a sample implementation of the proposed C++ standard library
>deleted.]
>
>The copyright of the C++ standard belongs to the appropriate standards
>organization(s).
>
>If Plauger's book, which I haven't seen yet, is at all like the other
>book of his about the `Standard C Library', which I own, then it
>contains bits of the (draft) C++ standard interleaved with bits of C++
>code that presumably implement the stuff the (draft) C++ standard talks
>about in a manner conforming to the standard.
>
>Of course Plauger owns the copyright to those bits of C++ code. He does
>not suddenly own the copyright to the Standard itself, nor the
>interfaces specified there, just by virtue of providing a sample
>implementation.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Why does the ANSI Draft Standard contain a Copyright notice...???
 ...and when the Draft Standard was released, ANSI committee members
 asked everyone to respect Plauger's copyright...I do not believe
 that they were talking about Plauger's book because the discussion
 was inconjunction with the decription of where the standard was
 stored on the Internet...

Which parts of the ANSI Draft Standard are copyrighted by P. J. Plauger..??

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Go have a look at the book for yourself. The C version is quite
>instructional and amusing to read if you go for that kind of stuff, even
>though the typography is sub-optimal and the code is buggy in some
>places.
>
>Anselm
>--
>Anselm Lingnau .........................
lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
>Calm down.  It's only ones and zeros.                              --- Sam
Kass
@@@@@@@@@

I have read the book many times...most of the book could be generated
from comments taken from classes and member functions.

It is not clear if the class names are copyrighted...
 or the member function names...
 some have claimed only the implementation...
  the book does not contain that level of detail...
 it is more like a series of manual pages...

I would think that the ANSI committee could make it clear which parts
of the ANSI standard are protected by copyrights, and other claims
such as patents (if any...)

If there are royalty fees involved in using the contents of the proposed
ANSI Standard...then it might be useful to describe those fees before
the standard is approved...

Someone wrote to me and said that there are no fees involved. This
individual claims that the purpose of the copyright is to discourage
others from putting the time and effort into developing a compatible
class library...

It is only via full disclosure on these sorts of issues that companies
can make the *business decision* whether to develop a library. If there
are no fees, and if the copyrights are not enforced, then one has to ask
why it is there and why members of the ANSI committee took extra steps
to point out the copyright claims...

...I am sure that there must be a simple explanation...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3vf1df$qdu@News1.mcs.net>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:

> It is not clear if the class names are copyrighted...
>  or the member function names...
>  some have claimed only the implementation...

You can't copyright a name. You also can't (currently) copyright a
language standard in the sense that everybody who uses a conforming
implementation must pay you for the use of the standard's
specifications.

You can, however, copyright the standard *document*, meaning the actual
wording of the legal definitions making up the standard, since these
provide an `expression' of the `idea' of the standard (and you can only
copyright the expression, not the idea). This is what the standards
bodies do because they make a living, however frugal or luxurious,
selling such documents. You can also copyright the *code* which provides
an implementation of such a standard. This is what Plauger does in his
book, and this is what all the other people currently in the business of
providing (draft) standard C++ libraries do. Of course that does not
prevent you (or, for that matter, anybody else) from coming up with your
own implementation -- which, of course, you may not produce by wholesale
copying of, say, Plauger's version.

There is a good FAQ on copyright which is regularly posted to places
like news.answers.

>   the book does not contain that level of detail...
>  it is more like a series of manual pages...

This is quite untrue. I just had a look at the C++ book and it is very
much like Plauger's C book -- it has the verbatim text of the standard
*and* C++ code which supposedly implement it.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Si jeunesse savoit; si vieillesse pouvouit.                  --- Henri Estienne

In article <3v4ie6$843@News1.mcs.net>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:

[Lots of confusion about the C++ standard and P. J. Plauger's book
containing a sample implementation of the proposed C++ standard library
deleted.]

The copyright of the C++ standard belongs to the appropriate standards
organization(s).

If Plauger's book, which I haven't seen yet, is at all like the other
book of his about the `Standard C Library', which I own, then it
contains bits of the (draft) C++ standard interleaved with bits of C++
code that presumably implement the stuff the (draft) C++ standard talks
about in a manner conforming to the standard.

Of course Plauger owns the copyright to those bits of C++ code. He does
not suddenly own the copyright to the Standard itself, nor the
interfaces specified there, just by virtue of providing a sample
implementation.

Go have a look at the book for yourself. The C version is quite
instructional and amusing to read if you go for that kind of stuff, even
though the typography is sub-optimal and the code is buggy in some
places.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Calm down.  It's only ones and zeros.                              --- Sam Kass

In article 843@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <3v34bt$ebb@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk>, shepherd@debussy.sbi.com
>says...
>>
>>In article 46g@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>
>>...a few inaccuracies that beg to be corrected:
>>
>>>In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>>>
>>>Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
>>>the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
>>>has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?
>>
>>Yes, it is the same Tom Plum.  But, note that Plauger's copyrights do
>>not prevent you or I (or anyone) from developing their own implementations
>>of the standard.  If it did, then everyone developing a C++ compiler--
>>from Microsoft, to Sun, to Tartan Labs, to GNU--would owe a cut to P. J.
>>Plauger.  I'm sure any representative of these entities can confirm that
>>they are not paying Plauger a blessed thing.
>
>Do they have to reference the copyright?

No, they do not.

>
>Do they have to get permission to use the copyrighted material?

No, they do not.

>
>If so, is that permission granted freely to everyone?

The permission to develop one's own implementation of the standard
is indeed granted freely to everyone.  In a similar vein, I believe
ISO has a standard for the Metric System, and that standard is copyrighted;
but, you don't have to get permission from them to make your own ruler!

> If so, what is the purpose of having a copyright?

The copyright protects:
 1. P.J. Plauger's prose description of the standard library.
 2. P.J. Plauger's implementation of the standard library.

So, you could not re-use his descriptions or implementation without
getting his permission or paying him a fee; this is the purpose of
the copyright.

The copyright does not, however, prevent you from developing your own
implementation of the standard, or from writing your own descriptions
of it.

>
>BTW, what does the copyright cover?
> Class names?

No.

> Member function (method) names?

No.

> Just the documentation?

Yes.

>
>Another poster claimed that ANSI and ISO hold the copyright. Has it
>been transferred?

P.J. Plauger has given ANSI/ISO permission to use some stuff that he
wrote; they didn't pay him anything for this--and indeed, he should have
paid *them*, for the publicity of having his name embossed on every copy
of the standard that gets sold.

The copyright hasn't been transferred per se--he is still selling the
same prose as part of his book, "The Annotated Draft C++ Standard Library."
But Jim, he doesn't own the class or member names--why can't you get
that straight???  His copyrights cannot and will not prevent the free
development of C++ implementations.


---
Marc Shepherd
Salomon Brothers Inc
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com <<These are my opinions, not my employer's.>>

In article <DCDxoo.I3y@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com says...
>
>In article <3v4o8p$843@News1.mcs.net>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
>>their work...???
>
>I am a member of the committee and I stay in touch with the ANSI
>process by reading news.  People use what they want to use, some
>choose email, some choose news.  Just because you don't have a
>newsfeed of all the ANSI groups, doesn't mean they don't exist.
@@@@@

We get over 9,000 groups...are you saying there are others that
we should reference...???

 Can you give us a list...???

@@@@@
>As to
>why they are only semipublic...  I don't have the short sweet answer
>for you.  The real answer would probably run 10 pages of closely
>spaced text if someone wrote it down.  If you could read it, you
>probably wouldn't agree with it.
>
@@@@@

Maybe you could give us a summary...:-)

@@@@@

>>How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?
>
>Our number of 100-125 seems reasonable.  Too many more and some
>problems would increase.  Fewer and other problems increase.  Each
>size has its own set of problems.  I am not sure what is the optimum
>number.
>
>>We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
>>       How many of these people actually participate...???
>
>We run about 100 or so for meetings, sometimes more, sometimes less.
>Sometimes people participate that don't go to meetings.
>
@@@@@@@@@

Hmmm...I thought that you had to attend 2 of the last 3 meetings to
vote...I assume that you mean participate by injecting information and/or
proposals via "voting members"...

What about information injected via the Internet (for example, via this
newgroup)...is it reviewed by the committee...???

@@@@@@@@@

>>Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???
>
>I assume you mean public unmoderated Usenet.  This is a good question.
@@@@@@@@@

Yes...I mean comp.std.c++ and also comp.std.c. Clearly, people that
use C (and all C languages) have a large vested interest in the outcome
of the ANSI C++ standards work. If the movement continues to merge C++
and C, then the C people should be aware of how C++ came to be what it
is...

@@@@@@@@@

>I wonder.  How do you handle people that you really want to exclude?
@@@@@@@@@

I do not think that anyone should be excluded...
 ...this seems to be the main theme of C++...
  ...exclude anyone that does not agree...
 ...communicate only with people that agree...
  ...undermine all other OO language efforts...
 C++ was built with Clout...

@@@@@@@@@

>For example, to be time efficient, you don't want people asking how to
>use vendor Y's compiler, you don't want people that have no clue what
>they are talking about, you don't want people that won't stick around
>and see it through...
>
>>It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
>>communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
>>many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
>>people to one place.
>
>We do know this.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yes...the committee seems very agile at using e-mail and private mailing
lists...ftp sites...and other newsgroups???...also, the printed press is
clearly, under very tight control of the C++ community...many C people
now seem to think that the future of C depends on C++...therefore, they
are willing to continue the C++ saga to make sure that C is not impacted.

Very few people seem willing to stand up and endorse C without C++. In
fact, if you go back and review some of the printed materials from the
past few years, key people in the C and C++ community did 180 degree
turns with respect to C++ when they realized that the life of C is now
tied to C++....

I am suggesting that all members of the committee report their positions
and views in this forum...eventually their names will be placed on the
final document...it would be nice to know which person contributed what
to the document and to have an accurate history of how events occurred.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
>>process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
>>on the process.
>
>Name them, and the spins they want to put on the process.  I think you
>have your own spin on things that doesn't match reality very well.
>
>>They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the system to not
>>only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they are properly
>>positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.
>
>We all try and position ourselves to capitalize on all the
>opportunities that come our way, that's your point?  I think you
>have a unique view on the ways things work and why.
>
@@@@@@@@@@

Interesting...are you saying that people that actively work on the
C++ ANSI Standard are actively enganged in a commercial activity which
hopefully will yield them some financial rewards down the road...???

If so...you might find it surprising that some companies claim their
people are not enganged in commercial activity...they therefore claim
that their people can not impact the financial future of others...this
is a clever

@@@@@@@@@@

>>Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
>>these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
>>and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
>>of time.  The result is that society suffers while a few people
>>benefit with apparently no regard for their impact on society.
>
>This is your value judgment on the process.  The power of creating a
>language to be used by many, historically has always been with a few
>people.  I don't know of many languages that were designed by a
>thousand or more people.  I would claim society has been helped, not
>harmed, and that society has benefitted, not suffered by the creation
>of those past languages by the few.  You claim the contrary, please
>prove it.  Please document the suffering that has gone on.
>
>Please document cases were a language has been created by thousands or
>millions of people and where society has benefitted more than the
>benefits of languages created by the few.  If you can't, then I would
>claim that your position is without foundation, and that it is based
>upon speculation at best.
>
>You simply do not have a firm grasp on why the few step forward and
>advance the state of the art for the many.  You don't understand the
>drawbacks of having a million people create a language.
>
>I happen to not agree with you.  Seems that most others happen to not
>agree with you either.  Maybe there is a reason for that.
>
>
>Instead screaming that your position is right, and we all are wrong,
>you will gain more respect from us, if you create a language, create a
>standard, and prove us wrong.  As you guess, we may not like it, but
>that is the way techonology advances.  In the end, we will pat you and
>the back, and say thanks for showing us the way.  We are doing the
>best that we can, and it is saddening to see people just criticise us.
>You seem only to drag the process down.  Is that all you do?  Why do
>you want to do this?  The way to change or improve the process, is to
>compete with it, and become better than it, not because you bring the
>process that your competing against down, but because your process is
>better.

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <DCA0Lx.MAJ@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com says...
>
>In article <3v23oe$cnm@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ffarance@aol.com (FFarance)
writes:
>
>> First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
>> available.
>
>I'm fairly certain that they will, at least for the C++ committee.
>
>The membership list is an ordinary document and all those documents
>are available to anyone who wants to purchase a copy.  If nothing else,
>every pre-meeting mailing has a membership list in it.
>--
>                                --Andrew Koenig
>                                  ark@research.att.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Are those "pre-meeting" mailings posted here on public Usenet...???

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
>In article <3ufqoa$284@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>> The following was excerpted from the recent meeting notes published by
>> the people meeting in Denmark to discuss the future of C (and C++).
>> [...]
>> It is still unclear why the C++ committee(s) do not publish information
>> like the following in an open forum.
>
>I hasten to point out that it was "published" by me acting as an
>individual member of X3J11 -- neither X3J11 nor WG14 officially
>approved that action and there are some committee members who feel that
>it was inappropriate or at least unwise.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Can you summarize who these people are and what their concerns are...???

If they do not have access to the net, then maybe you could post their
views for them...

BTW...one poster here indicates that all of this sort of thing will lead
to comp.std.c++ and/or comp.std.c becoming moderated...

 ...it would be interesting to get the opinion of the people
 that are currently proposing to moderate this group to give
 us a reading on whether they would have approved your original
 posting, which in my opinion, was one of the most timely and
 useful in recent times...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>----
>Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
>larry.jones@sdrc.com
>This sounds suspiciously like one of Dad's plots to build my character.
>-- Calvin

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3v6rar$sri@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ffarance@aol.com says...
>
>> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>>
>> >> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>> [snip]
>> >I think your missing a basic point about standards activity (even
>outside
>> >information technology): virtually everyone has some financial interest
>> >(producers and consumers).  It's supposed to be this way.  If your
>company
>> >has enough interest (whether compiler vendor, user, or otherwise),
>you'd
>> >probably be attending the meetings.  You should attend a meeting anyway
>> >to see what it's like.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the invitation to the meeting.
>>
>> More importantly, thanks for confirming the widely held believe that...
>>
>>       "virtually everyone has some financial interest"
>>
>> I will assume that you are an expert in the area of standards and I
>> hope that you do not mind if I pass this comment along as the opinion
>> of an expert.
>>
>> BTW, you might find it interesting that the legal staff of some large
>> companies claim that their people have no financial interest in the
>> standards work, that they are not enganged in any commercial activity,
>> and that they have no influence on commercial markets.
>
>Yes, but you've twisted the words again.  I'm assuming that you're
>drawing some conclusion that ``financial interest'' means ``direct
>financial gain from standards'' or the company must be ``for-profit''.
@@@@@@@@@@

Let's get down to some specifics...is AT&T "for-profit"...???

In your expert opinion...are the AT&T employees engaged in activities
with a financial interest...???

@@@@@@@@@@
>This certainly is not true.  If you carefully read my comments, you'd
>see that I referred to both producers and consumers.  Here's how some
>companies benefit (thus, their financial interest):
>
>        - Users have applications that can be homogonized to
>        a single standard.  They have a choice of compilers
>        from competing vendors because their product conforms
>        to a standard.  In the end, the development costs less
>        and the price of their compilers cost less.
>        - Vendors can compete more fairly with each other because
>        they are all targeting the same language.  Vendors are
>        free to add their extensions, but, primarily the features
>        of the standard are what they're competing on.  In the
>        end, either their return on investment is greater or
>        their risks are reduced becuase the requirements (i.e.,
>        conforming to a standard) are well understood and they
>        are what the customer wants.
>        - Journalists and authors may make money writing about
>        the standard (books, articles, etc.).  They exist in
>        almost every area of interest.
>        - Teachers, consultants, and other experts might be
>        interested in maintaining the value of their expertise.
>
>This isn't an exhaustive list and some companies fit in more
>than one category (e.g., both a user and a vendor).  BTW, having
>a financial interest doesn't mean that the company is ``for-profit''.
>A church can have financial interest (it wants to make sure its
>applications still work on new compilers it buys).
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Do you endorse the notion that churches should hire programmers to
produce software that can be sold in the commercial market (for a profit)
and then claim that all of their activity is not-for-profit...???

Is this the same as a "bake-sale"...???...is this fund-raising...???

Should companies be expected to compete against software that is
 subsidized...by tax payers dollars...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>This summary applies to many standards efforts at the national
>level.  At the international level, it is somewhat different.
>The international representatives (IR) are supposed represent the
>national bodies.  The IRs get their direction from TAG (technical
>advisory group) meetings.  At the ISO level, only IRs vote.  Both
>C and C++ have ``co-located'' meetings (not ``joint'' meetings)
>for efficiency reasons (see previous posting).  However, there are
>separate portions to handle ISO-specific business, ANSI-specific
>business, and other nations'-specific business.  This preserves
>both the letter and spirit of each set of rules.
>
>> This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop
>>
>>       Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
>>               \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/
>>
>> The cycle or loop is very simple...
>>
>> Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
>>       there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
>>       government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
>>       are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
>>       are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
>>       sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
>>       company...
>>
>> This last group seems to want its cake and eat it too...because of the
>>       unique positions that either society or their employers grant,
>>       they are NOT in a position to participate in the above business
>>       cycle...instead of properly positioning themselves in the above
>>       cycle they find ways to "influence" the process from the lofty
>>       heights that in some cases are granted, tax-free, by society...
>
>Your ``business loop'' might describe ``for-profit'' businesses, but
>doesn't describe all the companies that are involved in the standards
>process.  You're confusing ``business loop'' with ``financial
>interest''.
@@@@@@@@@@@@

No problem...I agree that many people benefit (or should benefit) from
standards work...after all, isn't that the goal...(I hope the goal is not
to play golf in Monterey, California)

You seem to want to take the focus away from the business interests that
support the standards-making. Can you give us some statistics on how
many people attend standards meetings for philanthropic reasons...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@
>The fact that I want a standard that, say, allows
>me to plug electrical appliances in my house all with the
>same wiring and plug type means that I have a financial interest
>in electrical products when I have a house built.  Will I
>participate in the NEMA standard?  Probably not because my
>financial interest isn't that great (say, $5000 in wiring vs.
>$20,000/year participation).  However, if I were a big electrical
>contractor building 10,000 homes, (say, $50,000,000 interest),
>then I might attend because my financial interest is large.
>In either case, my financial interest is represented in the
>value of conforming products (wiring and outlets that are the
>same).  This doesn't mean that I directly benefit from the
>standard, nor does it imply that I'm ``for-profit'' (the house
>could have been a church).
>
>> Many businesses (especially software businesses) can not compete with
>> people that are using their "day jobs" to influence the standards and
>> the market place without having to be responsible for their actions. In
>> some cases, their employers have to be responsible for their actions.
>
>I don't really understand your point.  If you're saying that a
>professor from XYZ university is on the committee, should its
>board of trustees be directly responsible for his/her opinions?
>I doubt it.  In most organizations, the representative is chosen
>using their own internal procedures (seniority, politics, only one
>olunteered for the job, the department that has travel money,
>etc.).  If there where conflicts (say, two people wanting to
>represent or competing viewpoints that represented the
>organization), then the organization would resolve that, not the
>standards committee.
>
>In standards, your ``responsibility'' as a voting member is
>to: (1) attend meetings, (2) participate in discussion, as
>appropriate, (3) to review material sent to you, (4) to
>vote with your opinion when called upon, (5) pay your dues.  As
>an observer, your only responsibility is to pay your dues.
>
>A technical committee might have 250 participants (members,
>their alternates, and observers), but only 70 active participants
>with 30-40 voting members.
>
>> >It is *definitely* not worth discussing the copyright issues here.
>I've
>> >seen this discussion a zillion times (usually, many postings with
>mindless
>> >dribble about hypotheticals).  Read a book on copyright law, trade
>> >secrets, and patents.
>>
>> How does reading a book replace a discussion of current events?
>
>Yes, a book would get you started on this because, apparently, you
>are unfamiliar with some of the basic issues (see your previous
>posting).  It is not worth the bandwidth and time to discuss this
>here.  Let us know what book you've read when you're done.
>
>> Do these books have reports on the copyright issues of the C++ standard?
>>       Or...are we supposed to wait for the traditional press to put
>>       their spin on things three months from now...after they are done
>>       falling all over Windows '95...
>
>As I said in the previous mailing, you have all the information you
>need to find out these issues, especially since your the one with
>the primary interest.  Asking us to do this legwork (when it only
>matters to you) is akin to clothing and feeding you.
>
>If you *really* were interested, you'd be desribing all the things
>you found out with authoritative references.  But as far as I can
>tell, you really aren't interested in doing anything yourself,
>whether it's picking up the phone, coming to a meeting, addressing
>any technical issues.  In fact, your postings all sound like hot
>wind.  Why don't you show us you technical credentials by addressing
>some point not previously discussed?
>
>> I hope that any business person that has made an investment in time,
>> energy, and $$$$ be afforded his or her legal rights to pursue his or
>> her business objectives without interference from people that are not
>> engaged in the business process.
>>
>> Again...thank you for stating that the "Standard activity *is* primarily
>> about commercial interest". I thank you for your expert opinion on this
>> subject.
>
>Yup, sounds like your going to twist those words around (see my
>comments above).
>
>> I hope that ALL companies with people engaged in standards activities
>> (especially C and C++) make sure that their employees are fully informed
>> of their responsibilities to their employer (i.e. company) and the
>> country where that company is domiciled.
>
>Most companies are painfully aware of their responsibilities: the
>travel cost, lost time, and membersip fees make all managers aware
>of this.  At the international level, countries *are* aware of
>their IRs because their national bodies direct them.
>
>> Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
>> their work...???
>
>Because the membership is transient and the quality of discussion
>is low.  Both of these greatly reduce productivity.
>
>You've contributed to much low quality discussion.  Let's see what
>kind of high quality discussion you're capable of.  Here's what I
>call the ``Fleming/flaming/paranoia/conspiracy'' cycle:
>
>        1.  Do little to validate your reality (i.e., don't
>        participate in technical discussion, don't submit papers,
>        don't come to meetings).
>        2.  Twist the words around into something that smells
>        of conspiracy.  It's a no-brainer to create a conspiracy
>        theory: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
>        conspiracy, or take Y and say I saw Y but Z was happening
>        behind the scenes.
>        3.  Post something that offends people to get their
>        attention.
>        4.  Receive much negative comments.
>        5.  Feel even more isolated.
>        6.  Go to step #1.
>
>It's hard to see how any committee would put up with your
>behavior.
>
>Get real!  Contribute to *technical* discussion.
>
>> >Mostly, the public isn't interested.  There are many people that get
>> >involved briefly (just so that they can say they were part of
>> >the committee) without long-term, meaningful contribution.
>>
>> How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?
>
>For C, it's probably about 40-80 people meeting 3 times a year
>for a week each time.  Adding more people doesn't help past
>that point (see ``Mythical Man Month'').  However, adding in
>observers and alternates, it wouldn't surprise me if C has
>150-250 people on its list.  These are people in ANSI X3J11.
>I haven't included any of the other countries national bodies
>(which are substantial).
>
>> We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
>>       How many of these people actually participate...???
>
>I don't know.  I'm not on that committee.
>
>> >  The standards process is based upon building
>> >concensus, public review, and due process.  Technology helps facilitate
>> >this, but it's not critical to the process.  Most of the problems are
>> >people-based: participation, continuity of membership, concensus
>> >building.
>> >
>>
>> Has it been your experience that this consensus is built in the periodic
>> meetings...or behind the scenes and prior to the socialization at the
>> meeting...???
>
>There are three aspects of the discussion: (1) the paper (delivered
>to you via postal mail), (2) the E-mail reflector, (3) the meeting.
>Almost all of the concensus building is done in these forums.
>
>> Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???
>
>Not really, see above.  Low quality discussion and transient
>members.
>
>>       Why put something in a standard...then...
>>               ...write about it in a magazine your buddy
>publishes..then..
>>               tell the world...everyone has adopted your position...
>>       ...without getting any opinions from other parties...
>
>You're really creative in turning everything into a conspiracy.  But,
>as I've offered in the previous posting and this posting: contribute!
>You are certainly free to submit a paper or comments.  I think this
>is the real test of whether or not you're a poser.  If the comments
>are technical in nature and address some important need and/or
>defect, you are likely to be heard.  If your comments are whiny
>and lack technical content, your comments are likely to be
>dismissed, which will feed your conspiracy cycle (see steps #4
>and #5 above).
>
>> >For any group of people, there is a need for public and
>> >private aspects of discussion.  For example, publishing discussions
>> >between lawyer and client would inhibit ``honest discussion''.  I
>> >think you miss the point: there is a difference between reporting
>> >progress and meeting minutes that can be misinterpreted and taken
>> >out of context (which you've demonstrated a willingness to do).
>> >
>> >See you at the next meeting!
>>
>> ...
>> It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
>> communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
>> many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
>> people to one place.
>
>Just because you have a communication tool, doesn't mean that it
>helps.  Usenet isn't ideal because of the transient nature and
>low quality discussion.  Nor is it useful because it isn't clear
>that the participants are representative.  Another feature that
>makes it a poor vehicle is that it requires full-time monitoring
>and discussion.  Sometimes, especially in standards work, you
>can't get an answer to a question in 24 hours because you have
>other work to do at your job.  WG14 meetings are scheduled 2-3
>years in advance so that people can schedule appropriately.  With
>Robert's Rules of Order, an agenda, and regularly scheduled
>meetings in advance, you can make much progress (it's been
>demonstrated over the past 100 years).
>
>The Usenet forum is more of a free-for-all that doesn't
>fit within this structure.  Until Usenet demonstrates that it
>can satisfy the quality requirements *and* be supportive of
>the standards process, it won't be a candidate as the primary
>mechanism for communication.
>
>> It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
>> process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
>> on the process. They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the
>> system to not only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they
>> are properly positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.
>
>Conspiracy step 2A: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
>conspiracy.
>
>Why don't you become a member?  I've asked for you to contribute.
>You don't want to do this.  Conspiracy step 1: do little to validate
>your reality (i.e., don't participate in technical discussion, don't
>submit papers, don't come to meetings).
>
>> Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
>> these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
>> and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
>> of time. The result is that society suffers while a few people benefit
>> with apparently no regard for their impact on society.
>
>Most net-literate people know how contribute, and they do contribute
>if they feel there is sufficient interest.  You ``could have been
>a contender'', but chose not to participate.
>
>> Fortunately, society and the new legions of people that communicate
>> via the Internet will quickly render this "old school", "good old boy
>> club" ineffective. Will that club scream...you bet. Will they try to
>> prevent people from publishing and developing alternative approaches..?
>> ...you bet...
>>       ...will they succeed over the long haul...???
>>               ...only time will tell...
>
>Go right ahead an develop an alternative.  There are many that have
>tried.  Even corporate executives that have the attitude ``if I
>only got some good, smart people and locked them in a room until
>they came out with a standard''.  The problems aren't as simple as
>getting good people or allowing them to communicate.  Some people
>*outside* standards committees see them as taking too much time.
>They fault the process, the committees, the members, the subject,
>and everything else.  Many committees are experimenting with methods
>to improve the process (communication, electronic documents,
>electronic balloting).  All these outsiders see is the end result and
>think ``oh, I could have done that''.  It's a lot of hard work.
>Why don't you try submitting a paper?
>
>> As a net-izen, you have the opportunity to not only experience the
>> changing shape of Cyberspace, but also to help shape the nature of the
>> net for future generations...by actively participating in the process,
>> you can shape the direction...you do not have to attend a meeting or
>> to pay a fee to join an ANSI committee...Usenet is your forum for
>> discussing your views...
>
>Generally, first-time participants aren't asked to pay a fee.  I
>don't know what the policy is in X3J16 and WG21, but you'd be
>welcome at a C meeting.  For C and C++ standards work ANSI (for
>US members) and ISO are the forums.  If you're interested in
>technical issues submit papers and comments.  If you're interested
>in whining, then find a forum outside "comp.std.c".
>
>However, my guess this that your contributions as a ``net-izen''
>will turn "comp.std.c" and "comp.std.c" into moderated newsgroups
>(step #5 in the conspiracy cycle).  Your main claim to fame will
>be contributing negatively to the discussion and turning the
>newsgroups into a moderated discussion -- not impressive credentials
>even if you have faith in the net.
>
>> Hopefully, this forum will be used to help produce the best standards
>> in the shortest time possible...the goal is not to produce the standard
>> which will allow the smallest number of people to gain the largest
>> financial advantage...in that respect, this forum is a more open and
>> higher potential forum than the ANSI activities which these newsgroups
>> cover...
>
>Feel free to do this.  However, it is hard to make you're case
>when you're avoiding technical issues.
>
>Contribute technically!  See you at the next meeting!
>
>-FF
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
>E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
>ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor
@@@@

This is a very interesting posting...thanks for your views...
 I hope you do not mind if we archive this one...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3v4o8p$843@News1.mcs.net>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
> This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop
>
>  Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
>   \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/
>
> The cycle or loop is very simple...
>
> Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
>  there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
>  government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
>  are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
>  are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
>  sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
>  company...

Are you saying that researchers, schools, governments, ministers, and
representatives of other groups should lead lives totally distinct from
the "business world"?

Do you think there is a place for official standards at all?

If you are not happy with ISO, please propose changes or a replacement.
--
Shields.

In article <3v4o8p$843@News1.mcs.net>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
>their work...???

I am a member of the committee and I stay in touch with the ANSI
process by reading news.  People use what they want to use, some
choose email, some choose news.  Just because you don't have a
newsfeed of all the ANSI groups, doesn't mean they don't exist.  As to
why they are only semipublic...  I don't have the short sweet answer
for you.  The real answer would probably run 10 pages of closely
spaced text if someone wrote it down.  If you could read it, you
probably wouldn't agree with it.

>How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?

Our number of 100-125 seems reasonable.  Too many more and some
problems would increase.  Fewer and other problems increase.  Each
size has its own set of problems.  I am not sure what is the optimum
number.

>We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
> How many of these people actually participate...???

We run about 100 or so for meetings, sometimes more, sometimes less.
Sometimes people participate that don't go to meetings.

>Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???

I assume you mean public unmoderated Usenet.  This is a good question.
I wonder.  How do you handle people that you really want to exclude?
For example, to be time efficient, you don't want people asking how to
use vendor Y's compiler, you don't want people that have no clue what
they are talking about, you don't want people that won't stick around
and see it through...

>It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
>communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
>many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
>people to one place.

We do know this.

>It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
>process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
>on the process.

Name them, and the spins they want to put on the process.  I think you
have your own spin on things that doesn't match reality very well.

>They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the system to not
>only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they are properly
>positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.

We all try and position ourselves to capitalize on all the
opportunities that come our way, that's your point?  I think you
have a unique view on the ways things work and why.

>Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
>these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
>and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
>of time.  The result is that society suffers while a few people
>benefit with apparently no regard for their impact on society.

This is your value judgment on the process.  The power of creating a
language to be used by many, historically has always been with a few
people.  I don't know of many languages that were designed by a
thousand or more people.  I would claim society has been helped, not
harmed, and that society has benefitted, not suffered by the creation
of those past languages by the few.  You claim the contrary, please
prove it.  Please document the suffering that has gone on.

Please document cases were a language has been created by thousands or
millions of people and where society has benefitted more than the
benefits of languages created by the few.  If you can't, then I would
claim that your position is without foundation, and that it is based
upon speculation at best.

You simply do not have a firm grasp on why the few step forward and
advance the state of the art for the many.  You don't understand the
drawbacks of having a million people create a language.

I happen to not agree with you.  Seems that most others happen to not
agree with you either.  Maybe there is a reason for that.


Instead screaming that your position is right, and we all are wrong,
you will gain more respect from us, if you create a language, create a
standard, and prove us wrong.  As you guess, we may not like it, but
that is the way techonology advances.  In the end, we will pat you and
the back, and say thanks for showing us the way.  We are doing the
best that we can, and it is saddening to see people just criticise us.
You seem only to drag the process down.  Is that all you do?  Why do
you want to do this?  The way to change or improve the process, is to
compete with it, and become better than it, not because you bring the
process that your competing against down, but because your process is
better.

In article <3v23oe$cnm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ffarance@aol.com says...
>
@@@@@@@@@@

For the record...many of the comments below are from Larry Jones'
original posting...

@@@@@@@@@@

>> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
[snip]
>I think your missing a basic point about standards activity (even outside
>information technology): virtually everyone has some financial interest
>(producers and consumers).  It's supposed to be this way.  If your company
>has enough interest (whether compiler vendor, user, or otherwise), you'd
>probably be attending the meetings.  You should attend a meeting anyway
>to see what it's like.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thanks for the invitation to the meeting.

More importantly, thanks for confirming the widely held believe that...

 "virtually everyone has some financial interest"

I will assume that you are an expert in the area of standards and I
hope that you do not mind if I pass this comment along as the opinion
of an expert.

BTW, you might find it interesting that the legal staff of some large
companies claim that their people have no financial interest in the
standards work, that they are not enganged in any commercial activity,
and that they have no influence on commercial markets.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>> I imagine that many people would like to own the copyright on the ANSI
>> standard C++ class library (or parts of it). BTW, I do not think that it
>> is clear which parts are copyrighted and to what extent the copyright
>> applies. For example, are the member function names copyrighted? Are
>> the class names copyrighted?
>
>I don't know the details of the copyright issues, but it's probably safe
>to say:
>
>        - Bill Plauger has a copyright on the book he authored.
>        - Bill Plauger doesn't give the software away for commercial
>        purpose (like many packages on the Internet), so he gives
>        a name and address of where you can purchase it.
>        - If Tom Plum and Bill Plauger find it profitable to work
>        together (like IBM and Apple), so be it.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I agree...as I have pointed out...I think that Tom Plum and Bill (P.J.)
Plauger should be able to reap whatever financial rewards that they can
because of their hard work and "investments" in the technology and the
content of the standard.

This is what business is all about. People make investments, companies
develop technologies, products, etc. Sometimes those technologies become
a "standard", like DOS. Then people become very wealthy for being at the
right place at the right time and because they took the risk of making
an investment.

This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop

 Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
  \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/

The cycle or loop is very simple...

Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
 there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
 government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
 are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
 are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
 sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
 company...

This last group seems to want its cake and eat it too...because of the
 unique positions that either society or their employers grant,
 they are NOT in a position to participate in the above business
 cycle...instead of properly positioning themselves in the above
 cycle they find ways to "influence" the process from the lofty
 heights that in some cases are granted, tax-free, by society...

Many businesses (especially software businesses) can not compete with
people that are using their "day jobs" to influence the standards and
the market place without having to be responsible for their actions. In
some cases, their employers have to be responsible for their actions.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>It is *definitely* not worth discussing the copyright issues here.  I've
>seen this discussion a zillion times (usually, many postings with mindless
>dribble about hypotheticals).  Read a book on copyright law, trade
>secrets, and patents.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

How does reading a book replace a discussion of current events?

Do these books have reports on the copyright issues of the C++ standard?
 Or...are we supposed to wait for the traditional press to put
 their spin on things three months from now...after they are done
 falling all over Windows '95...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>FYI, AT&T held the copyright on ANSI C until it was published as an
>official standard.  This is because ANSI C was based upon K&R.
>
>> It is still not clear to me what happened to HP and the STL library. HP
>> claims that they pursued patent rights and have now either given up
>those
>> rights or placed the library in the public domain.
>>
>> When a national or international standard is developed I think that it
>> is important to inform everyone of the claims that are made regarding
>> the ownership of the intellectual property (or intellectual capital as
>> some people prefer to call it).
>
>Standards are required to have information with respect to patent claims
>(I don't have the exact ANSI or ISO wording handy).  Since a standard is
>publicly available, you can't claim any trade secrets.  Copyrights are
>owned by ANSI, ISO, IEC, and so on.
>
>> @@@@@@@@@@@
>> >> >  *** The following people tentatively volunteered to review parts
>of
>> the
>> >> >      C++ Working Paper:  Plauger (library), Farance (templates,
>> >> >      exceptions), Thomas (floating point), Benito (overloading,
>> >> >      exceptions).
>> >> >
>> >> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>> >>
>> >> The C++ and C overlap...???
>> >
>> >As far as I know, none of those people (with the possible exception of
>> >Plauger) are actual members of the C++ committee -- they are simply
>> >interested members of the C committee who volunteered to review the
>> >draft C++ standard from a C perspective.
>>
>> Again, if we had a clear list of who is on what committee this would
>> be easy to check. On one hand the C and C++ committees keep pointing out
>> that all of this standards work is very confusing and probably can not
>> be easily understood by the common man. On the other hand, it seems very
>> to some people that there only a few people involved and these people
>> are clearly well positioned to reap huge financial rewards when the
>effort
>> is complete.
>
>First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
>available.  They'd be asking what purpose you had in mind.  Members
>have a right to privacy too -- they don't want to receive unsolicited
>junk mail, phone calls, and so on (just like many readers would be
>upset to have the phone numbers, names, and addresses distributed
>widely).  If your purpose is to participate, they you don't need the
>lists -- just show up.  If your purpose is to harass, they you don't
>need the lists.
>
>Second, as far as I can tell (based upon asking members directly),
>Larry's comments are accurate.
>
>> Again, please do not misinterpret my comments. I do not think there is
>> anything wrong with people benefiting financially from their efforts.
>
>Why are you complaining?  Standard activity *is*, primarily about
>commercial interest --producers and consumers (I classify teaching
>as a consumer issue).  Academic issues are important, too, but are
>not the main focus of standards activity.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Again...I am not complaining...

I hope that any business person that has made an investment in time,
energy, and $$$$ be afforded his or her legal rights to pursue his or
her business objectives without interference from people that are not
engaged in the business process.

Again...thank you for stating that the "Standard activity *is* primarily
about commercial interest". I thank you for your expert opinion on this
subject.

I hope that ALL companies with people engaged in standards activities
(especially C and C++) make sure that their employees are fully informed
of their responsibilities to their employer (i.e. company) and the
country where that company is domiciled.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>> >> Note, the recent C++ standard was initially only distributed in
>Postscript
>> >> and it took about a month for people to get it converted to various
>forms
>> >> that are more useful. It looks like the C standard is going to be in
>> >> SGML as noted above.
>> >>
>> >> All standards bodies should make it easy for people to read and
>search
>> >> the documents. It is not clear why the original C++ document was in a
>> >> form that made it hard to read. Because the public comment period was
>> >> very short, it was not beneficial to waste people's time trying to
>> convert
>> >> the document. ANSI seems to have outdated approaches that favor
>leaving
>> >> control in the hands of a few...
>> >
>> >ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
>> >distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
>> >someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
>> >the official one.
>>
>> Maybe we should first distribute the standard and then see if this
>> happens.
>
>Well, ANSI and ISO are interested in copyright issues, too -- another
>type of control.  You've shot yourself in the foot if you decide that
>you trust everyone won't make a copy of the standard and then discover
>it's widely distributed for free.  Not only do you have little practical
>recourse, you have little legal recourse since you encouraged copying.
>You'll note that the distributed copies of the document (electronically
>or paper) are ``for the purposes of standards formation''.
>
>While I agree that standards should be publicly available, I'm not it
>the position of making that decision.  Some people believe it is
>easier to ask forgiveness than permission.  I think the opposite is
>true here.
>
>> P.J. Plauger published a book called The DRAFT Standard C++ Library,
>> ISBN 0-13-117003-1. The cover states, "BASED ON DRAFT PROPOSED ANSI/ISO
>> C++ STANDARD". The book carries a 1995 copyright but was published
>> in September of 1994.
>
>What's your point?
>
>> Some people claim that the book does not describe the ANSI C++ standard.
>> One poster here claims that the book was released early because of a
>> contract commitment with the publisher and the ANSI schedule had to be
>> ignored in order to satisfy the terms of the contract. The DRAFT
>standard
>> released in April of 1995 carries a copyright by P.J. Plauger. The book
>> contains an order form to order the source code library from:
>
>Since you have the publisher, address, and telephone number, why don't
>you make a couple phone calls and report back to us.  You clearly have
>a burning interest in this.
>
>> The DRAFT ANSI standard was of course apparently released from AT&T
>> via an ftp site at research.att.com. It is not clear if the book was
>> used as the base for the standard or the standard was used as the base
>> for the book.
>>
>> If the standard was used as the base for the book and the software being
>> sold above, then I suppose that all companies should have the same
>access
>> to the standard in other than Postscript format.
>
>When you report back to us, you'll have the answer to this question.
>Hypotheticals with little information are mindless dribble.
>
>> If the book and software being sold above instead was used as the base
>> for the standard, then one has to ask how or why the committee came to
>> the conclusion that this particular class library be used for the
>standard.
>> I assume that the committee has minutes from the meetings where these
>> decisions were made.
>
>Prior art is an important issue.  If you have vendors that have
>implemented
>features, there is weight in their proposals because they've demonstrated
>feasibility.  I'll tell you something that *doesn't* happen in meetings
>like this: ``you vote for my proposal so that I'll make money and I'll
>vote for yours''.  Usually, most of the discussions on major issues are
>particularly ``lively''.  Although each vendor may have some business
>interest at stake, almost all of the discussion is technical.  I am
>not familiar with the delibarations of WG21.  However, my guess is that
>in a room full of about 100 smart technical people, decisions won't be
>made on the financial success of a book.
>
>> Again, everyone that reads these newsgroups should applaud you for your
>> efforts to help to create an open forum in national and international
>> standards.
>>
>> Yes, I can understand why people and companies would advise you that it
>is
>> not prudent to inform the world about the standards efforts. This could
>> allow other companies into the market earlier and could cause the
>limited
>> financial pie to be divided.
>
>I think you've misinterpreted what has been said.  I think most companies
>and technical committees would be pleased to have the public understand
>what is going on.  What Larry did say was that there was concern about
>the distribution of the minutes, not concern about reporting progress
>of the committee (which is being reported in several journals).
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
their work...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Mostly, the public isn't interested.  There are many people that get
>involved briefly (just so that they can say they were part of
>the committee) without long-term, meaningful contribution.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?

We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
 How many of these people actually participate...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>  The
>facts are that a standard takes about 5-10 years to produce.  To get
>high quality development, you need a stable membership base, which is
>why ANSI is based upon company membership.  Individuals, many times, are
>transient members.  When you have problems that take 2-3 years to solve
>properly, it doesn't help to have your membership in flux.  Even with
>the same set of people, occassionally, new information causes people
>to change their minds.  With transient membership, little progress would
>be made.  In fact, if the committees had transient membership, the
>result might just be the company who had the largest market share --
>not a great outcome.  This is why ANSI has voting rules that require
>attendence at 2 of the last 3 meetings.
>
>> It is ironic that the systems that were put in place by our parents to
>> "level the playing fields" and to keep everyone honest are now being
>used
>> to prevent the Internet from playing that role. I wonder if a few years
>from
>> now, another system will not evolve to allow people to once again engage
>> in "honest discussion" that is inhibited by the systems supported by the
>> Internet...maybe it will not take that long...maybe in August...:+)
>
>I don't see how you draw this conclusion.  The Internet gives much more
>access and distribution to committees and interested parties.  Just
>because you have a new technology (e.g., the Internet) doesn't mean
>your problems go away.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

When you are dealing with humans...problems do not go away...
 The architecture of humans has not changed with the arrival
  of the computer...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>  The standards process is based upon building
>concensus, public review, and due process.  Technology helps facilitate
>this, but it's not critical to the process.  Most of the problems are
>people-based: participation, continuity of membership, concensus
>building.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Has it been your experience that this consensus is built in the periodic
meetings...or behind the scenes and prior to the socialization at the
meeting...???

Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???
 Why put something in a standard...then...
  ...write about it in a magazine your buddy publishes..then..
  tell the world...everyone has adopted your position...
 ...without getting any opinions from other parties...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>For any group of people, there is a need for public and
>private aspects of discussion.  For example, publishing discussions
>between lawyer and client would inhibit ``honest discussion''.  I
>think you miss the point: there is a difference between reporting
>progress and meeting minutes that can be misinterpreted and taken
>out of context (which you've demonstrated a willingness to do).
>
>See you at the next meeting!
>
>-FF
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
>E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
>ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Maybe the "transcript" of the meetings should be published...
 ...of course, that would probably cause many people to avoid
 talking for fear that their opinions would be published...

It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
people to one place.

It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
on the process. They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the
system to not only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they
are properly positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.

Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
of time. The result is that society suffers while a few people benefit
with apparently no regard for their impact on society.

Fortunately, society and the new legions of people that communicate
via the Internet will quickly render this "old school", "good old boy
club" ineffective. Will that club scream...you bet. Will they try to
prevent people from publishing and developing alternative approaches..?
...you bet...
 ...will they succeed over the long haul...???
  ...only time will tell...

As a net-izen, you have the opportunity to not only experience the
changing shape of Cyberspace, but also to help shape the nature of the
net for future generations...by actively participating in the process,
you can shape the direction...you do not have to attend a meeting or
to pay a fee to join an ANSI committee...Usenet is your forum for
discussing your views...

Hopefully, this forum will be used to help produce the best standards
in the shortest time possible...the goal is not to produce the standard
which will allow the smallest number of people to gain the largest
financial advantage...in that respect, this forum is a more open and
higher potential forum than the ANSI activities which these newsgroups
cover...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3v34bt$ebb@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk>, shepherd@debussy.sbi.com
says...
>
>In article 46g@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>
>...a few inaccuracies that beg to be corrected:
>
>>In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>>
>>Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
>>the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
>>has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?
>
>Yes, it is the same Tom Plum.  But, note that Plauger's copyrights do
>not prevent you or I (or anyone) from developing their own implementations
>of the standard.  If it did, then everyone developing a C++ compiler--
>from Microsoft, to Sun, to Tartan Labs, to GNU--would owe a cut to P. J.
>Plauger.  I'm sure any representative of these entities can confirm that
>they are not paying Plauger a blessed thing.
>
>--
>Marc Shepherd
>shepherd@schubert.sbi.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Do they have to reference the copyright?

Do they have to get permission to use the copyrighted material?

If so, is that permission granted freely to everyone?
 If so, what is the purpose of having a copyright?

BTW, what does the copyright cover?
 Class names?
 Member function (method) names?
 Just the documentation?

Another poster claimed that ANSI and ISO hold the copyright. Has it
been transferred?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

> From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
>
> > First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
> > available.
>
> I'm fairly certain that they will, at least for the C++ committee.
>
> The membership list is an ordinary document and all those documents
> are available to anyone who wants to purchase a copy.  If nothing else,
> every pre-meeting mailing has a membership list in it.

The JTC1 TAG membership and X3 membership (i.e., corporate membership)
are public documents.  However, the technical committee (TC) membership
(e.g., X3J11 and X3J16) are not publicly available.  X3 might consider
making TC membership list available in the future (representative's
name, company affiliation, membership status: primary, alternate,
additional alternate, observer), i.e., the same information that appears
inside an ANSI standard, but it won't make address, telephone
number, or E-mail address available for privacy reasons (e.g., avoiding
junk mail, reselling address lists).

X3 will rent mailing lists as long as they understand (and approve
of) the purpose and the content (I think you send them the mailing
with postage and they apply the mailing labels).  Voting status
(e.g., 2/3 meeting eligibility, warning letters on letter ballots,
etc.) will be maintained by the TCs -- X3 has no plans on
distributing this.  I confirmed this today with Jean Paul at X3.

X3J16 may choose to distribute this information.  However, it is not
required by X3 and X3 won't distribute it.

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>
> >> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
> [snip]
> >I think your missing a basic point about standards activity (even
outside
> >information technology): virtually everyone has some financial interest
> >(producers and consumers).  It's supposed to be this way.  If your
company
> >has enough interest (whether compiler vendor, user, or otherwise),
you'd
> >probably be attending the meetings.  You should attend a meeting anyway
> >to see what it's like.
> >
>
> Thanks for the invitation to the meeting.
>
> More importantly, thanks for confirming the widely held believe that...
>
>  "virtually everyone has some financial interest"
>
> I will assume that you are an expert in the area of standards and I
> hope that you do not mind if I pass this comment along as the opinion
> of an expert.
>
> BTW, you might find it interesting that the legal staff of some large
> companies claim that their people have no financial interest in the
> standards work, that they are not enganged in any commercial activity,
> and that they have no influence on commercial markets.

Yes, but you've twisted the words again.  I'm assuming that you're
drawing some conclusion that ``financial interest'' means ``direct
financial gain from standards'' or the company must be ``for-profit''.
This certainly is not true.  If you carefully read my comments, you'd
see that I referred to both producers and consumers.  Here's how some
companies benefit (thus, their financial interest):

 - Users have applications that can be homogonized to
 a single standard.  They have a choice of compilers
 from competing vendors because their product conforms
 to a standard.  In the end, the development costs less
 and the price of their compilers cost less.
 - Vendors can compete more fairly with each other because
 they are all targeting the same language.  Vendors are
 free to add their extensions, but, primarily the features
 of the standard are what they're competing on.  In the
 end, either their return on investment is greater or
 their risks are reduced becuase the requirements (i.e.,
 conforming to a standard) are well understood and they
 are what the customer wants.
 - Journalists and authors may make money writing about
 the standard (books, articles, etc.).  They exist in
 almost every area of interest.
 - Teachers, consultants, and other experts might be
 interested in maintaining the value of their expertise.

This isn't an exhaustive list and some companies fit in more
than one category (e.g., both a user and a vendor).  BTW, having
a financial interest doesn't mean that the company is ``for-profit''.
A church can have financial interest (it wants to make sure its
applications still work on new compilers it buys).

This summary applies to many standards efforts at the national
level.  At the international level, it is somewhat different.
The international representatives (IR) are supposed represent the
national bodies.  The IRs get their direction from TAG (technical
advisory group) meetings.  At the ISO level, only IRs vote.  Both
C and C++ have ``co-located'' meetings (not ``joint'' meetings)
for efficiency reasons (see previous posting).  However, there are
separate portions to handle ISO-specific business, ANSI-specific
business, and other nations'-specific business.  This preserves
both the letter and spirit of each set of rules.

> This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop
>
>  Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
>   \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/
>
> The cycle or loop is very simple...
>
> Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
>  there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
>  government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
>  are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
>  are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
>  sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
>  company...
>
> This last group seems to want its cake and eat it too...because of the
>  unique positions that either society or their employers grant,
>  they are NOT in a position to participate in the above business
>  cycle...instead of properly positioning themselves in the above
>  cycle they find ways to "influence" the process from the lofty
>  heights that in some cases are granted, tax-free, by society...

Your ``business loop'' might describe ``for-profit'' businesses, but
doesn't describe all the companies that are involved in the standards
process.  You're confusing ``business loop'' with ``financial
interest''.  The fact that I want a standard that, say, allows
me to plug electrical appliances in my house all with the
same wiring and plug type means that I have a financial interest
in electrical products when I have a house built.  Will I
participate in the NEMA standard?  Probably not because my
financial interest isn't that great (say, $5000 in wiring vs.
$20,000/year participation).  However, if I were a big electrical
contractor building 10,000 homes, (say, $50,000,000 interest),
then I might attend because my financial interest is large.
In either case, my financial interest is represented in the
value of conforming products (wiring and outlets that are the
same).  This doesn't mean that I directly benefit from the
standard, nor does it imply that I'm ``for-profit'' (the house
could have been a church).

> Many businesses (especially software businesses) can not compete with
> people that are using their "day jobs" to influence the standards and
> the market place without having to be responsible for their actions. In
> some cases, their employers have to be responsible for their actions.

I don't really understand your point.  If you're saying that a
professor from XYZ university is on the committee, should its
board of trustees be directly responsible for his/her opinions?
I doubt it.  In most organizations, the representative is chosen
using their own internal procedures (seniority, politics, only one
olunteered for the job, the department that has travel money,
etc.).  If there where conflicts (say, two people wanting to
represent or competing viewpoints that represented the
organization), then the organization would resolve that, not the
standards committee.

In standards, your ``responsibility'' as a voting member is
to: (1) attend meetings, (2) participate in discussion, as
appropriate, (3) to review material sent to you, (4) to
vote with your opinion when called upon, (5) pay your dues.  As
an observer, your only responsibility is to pay your dues.

A technical committee might have 250 participants (members,
their alternates, and observers), but only 70 active participants
with 30-40 voting members.

> >It is *definitely* not worth discussing the copyright issues here.
I've
> >seen this discussion a zillion times (usually, many postings with
mindless
> >dribble about hypotheticals).  Read a book on copyright law, trade
> >secrets, and patents.
>
> How does reading a book replace a discussion of current events?

Yes, a book would get you started on this because, apparently, you
are unfamiliar with some of the basic issues (see your previous
posting).  It is not worth the bandwidth and time to discuss this
here.  Let us know what book you've read when you're done.

> Do these books have reports on the copyright issues of the C++ standard?
>  Or...are we supposed to wait for the traditional press to put
>  their spin on things three months from now...after they are done
>  falling all over Windows '95...

As I said in the previous mailing, you have all the information you
need to find out these issues, especially since your the one with
the primary interest.  Asking us to do this legwork (when it only
matters to you) is akin to clothing and feeding you.

If you *really* were interested, you'd be desribing all the things
you found out with authoritative references.  But as far as I can
tell, you really aren't interested in doing anything yourself,
whether it's picking up the phone, coming to a meeting, addressing
any technical issues.  In fact, your postings all sound like hot
wind.  Why don't you show us you technical credentials by addressing
some point not previously discussed?

> I hope that any business person that has made an investment in time,
> energy, and $$$$ be afforded his or her legal rights to pursue his or
> her business objectives without interference from people that are not
> engaged in the business process.
>
> Again...thank you for stating that the "Standard activity *is* primarily
> about commercial interest". I thank you for your expert opinion on this
> subject.

Yup, sounds like your going to twist those words around (see my
comments above).

> I hope that ALL companies with people engaged in standards activities
> (especially C and C++) make sure that their employees are fully informed
> of their responsibilities to their employer (i.e. company) and the
> country where that company is domiciled.

Most companies are painfully aware of their responsibilities: the
travel cost, lost time, and membersip fees make all managers aware
of this.  At the international level, countries *are* aware of
their IRs because their national bodies direct them.

> Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
> their work...???

Because the membership is transient and the quality of discussion
is low.  Both of these greatly reduce productivity.

You've contributed to much low quality discussion.  Let's see what
kind of high quality discussion you're capable of.  Here's what I
call the ``Fleming/flaming/paranoia/conspiracy'' cycle:

 1.  Do little to validate your reality (i.e., don't
 participate in technical discussion, don't submit papers,
 don't come to meetings).
 2.  Twist the words around into something that smells
 of conspiracy.  It's a no-brainer to create a conspiracy
 theory: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
 conspiracy, or take Y and say I saw Y but Z was happening
 behind the scenes.
 3.  Post something that offends people to get their
 attention.
 4.  Receive much negative comments.
 5.  Feel even more isolated.
 6.  Go to step #1.

It's hard to see how any committee would put up with your
behavior.

Get real!  Contribute to *technical* discussion.

> >Mostly, the public isn't interested.  There are many people that get
> >involved briefly (just so that they can say they were part of
> >the committee) without long-term, meaningful contribution.
>
> How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?

For C, it's probably about 40-80 people meeting 3 times a year
for a week each time.  Adding more people doesn't help past
that point (see ``Mythical Man Month'').  However, adding in
observers and alternates, it wouldn't surprise me if C has
150-250 people on its list.  These are people in ANSI X3J11.
I haven't included any of the other countries national bodies
(which are substantial).

> We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
>  How many of these people actually participate...???

I don't know.  I'm not on that committee.

> >  The standards process is based upon building
> >concensus, public review, and due process.  Technology helps facilitate
> >this, but it's not critical to the process.  Most of the problems are
> >people-based: participation, continuity of membership, concensus
> >building.
> >
>
> Has it been your experience that this consensus is built in the periodic
> meetings...or behind the scenes and prior to the socialization at the
> meeting...???

There are three aspects of the discussion: (1) the paper (delivered
to you via postal mail), (2) the E-mail reflector, (3) the meeting.
Almost all of the concensus building is done in these forums.

> Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???

Not really, see above.  Low quality discussion and transient
members.

>  Why put something in a standard...then...
>   ...write about it in a magazine your buddy
publishes..then..
>   tell the world...everyone has adopted your position...
>  ...without getting any opinions from other parties...

You're really creative in turning everything into a conspiracy.  But,
as I've offered in the previous posting and this posting: contribute!
You are certainly free to submit a paper or comments.  I think this
is the real test of whether or not you're a poser.  If the comments
are technical in nature and address some important need and/or
defect, you are likely to be heard.  If your comments are whiny
and lack technical content, your comments are likely to be
dismissed, which will feed your conspiracy cycle (see steps #4
and #5 above).

> >For any group of people, there is a need for public and
> >private aspects of discussion.  For example, publishing discussions
> >between lawyer and client would inhibit ``honest discussion''.  I
> >think you miss the point: there is a difference between reporting
> >progress and meeting minutes that can be misinterpreted and taken
> >out of context (which you've demonstrated a willingness to do).
> >
> >See you at the next meeting!
>
> ...
> It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
> communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
> many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
> people to one place.

Just because you have a communication tool, doesn't mean that it
helps.  Usenet isn't ideal because of the transient nature and
low quality discussion.  Nor is it useful because it isn't clear
that the participants are representative.  Another feature that
makes it a poor vehicle is that it requires full-time monitoring
and discussion.  Sometimes, especially in standards work, you
can't get an answer to a question in 24 hours because you have
other work to do at your job.  WG14 meetings are scheduled 2-3
years in advance so that people can schedule appropriately.  With
Robert's Rules of Order, an agenda, and regularly scheduled
meetings in advance, you can make much progress (it's been
demonstrated over the past 100 years).

The Usenet forum is more of a free-for-all that doesn't
fit within this structure.  Until Usenet demonstrates that it
can satisfy the quality requirements *and* be supportive of
the standards process, it won't be a candidate as the primary
mechanism for communication.

> It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
> process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
> on the process. They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the
> system to not only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they
> are properly positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.

Conspiracy step 2A: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
conspiracy.

Why don't you become a member?  I've asked for you to contribute.
You don't want to do this.  Conspiracy step 1: do little to validate
your reality (i.e., don't participate in technical discussion, don't
submit papers, don't come to meetings).

> Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
> these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
> and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
> of time. The result is that society suffers while a few people benefit
> with apparently no regard for their impact on society.

Most net-literate people know how contribute, and they do contribute
if they feel there is sufficient interest.  You ``could have been
a contender'', but chose not to participate.

> Fortunately, society and the new legions of people that communicate
> via the Internet will quickly render this "old school", "good old boy
> club" ineffective. Will that club scream...you bet. Will they try to
> prevent people from publishing and developing alternative approaches..?
> ...you bet...
>  ...will they succeed over the long haul...???
>   ...only time will tell...

Go right ahead an develop an alternative.  There are many that have
tried.  Even corporate executives that have the attitude ``if I
only got some good, smart people and locked them in a room until
they came out with a standard''.  The problems aren't as simple as
getting good people or allowing them to communicate.  Some people
*outside* standards committees see them as taking too much time.
They fault the process, the committees, the members, the subject,
and everything else.  Many committees are experimenting with methods
to improve the process (communication, electronic documents,
electronic balloting).  All these outsiders see is the end result and
think ``oh, I could have done that''.  It's a lot of hard work.
Why don't you try submitting a paper?

> As a net-izen, you have the opportunity to not only experience the
> changing shape of Cyberspace, but also to help shape the nature of the
> net for future generations...by actively participating in the process,
> you can shape the direction...you do not have to attend a meeting or
> to pay a fee to join an ANSI committee...Usenet is your forum for
> discussing your views...

Generally, first-time participants aren't asked to pay a fee.  I
don't know what the policy is in X3J16 and WG21, but you'd be
welcome at a C meeting.  For C and C++ standards work ANSI (for
US members) and ISO are the forums.  If you're interested in
technical issues submit papers and comments.  If you're interested
in whining, then find a forum outside "comp.std.c".

However, my guess this that your contributions as a ``net-izen''
will turn "comp.std.c" and "comp.std.c" into moderated newsgroups
(step #5 in the conspiracy cycle).  Your main claim to fame will
be contributing negatively to the discussion and turning the
newsgroups into a moderated discussion -- not impressive credentials
even if you have faith in the net.

> Hopefully, this forum will be used to help produce the best standards
> in the shortest time possible...the goal is not to produce the standard
> which will allow the smallest number of people to gain the largest
> financial advantage...in that respect, this forum is a more open and
> higher potential forum than the ANSI activities which these newsgroups
> cover...

Feel free to do this.  However, it is hard to make you're case
when you're avoiding technical issues.

Contribute technically!  See you at the next meeting!

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

> From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
>
> > First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
> > available.
>
> I'm fairly certain that they will, at least for the C++ committee.
>
> The membership list is an ordinary document and all those documents
> are available to anyone who wants to purchase a copy.  If nothing else,
> every pre-meeting mailing has a membership list in it.

The JTC1 TAG membership and X3 membership (i.e., corporate membership)
are public documents.  However, the technical committee (TC) membership
(e.g., X3J11 and X3J16) are not publicly available.  X3 might consider
making TC membership list available in the future (representative's
name, company affiliation, membership status: primary, alternate,
additional alternate, observer), i.e., the same information that appears
inside an ANSI standard, but it won't make address, telephone
number, or E-mail address available for privacy reasons (e.g., avoiding
junk mail, reselling address lists).

X3 will rent mailing lists as long as they understand (and approve
of) the purpose and the content (I think you send them the mailing
with postage and they apply the mailing labels).  Voting status
(e.g., 2/3 meeting eligibility, warning letters on letter ballots,
etc.) will be maintained by the TCs -- X3 has no plans on
distributing this.  I confirmed this today with Jean Paul at X3.

X3J16 may choose to distribute this information.  However, it is not
required by X3 and X3 won't distribute it.

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>
> >> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
> [snip]
> >I think your missing a basic point about standards activity (even
outside
> >information technology): virtually everyone has some financial interest
> >(producers and consumers).  It's supposed to be this way.  If your
company
> >has enough interest (whether compiler vendor, user, or otherwise),
you'd
> >probably be attending the meetings.  You should attend a meeting anyway
> >to see what it's like.
> >
>
> Thanks for the invitation to the meeting.
>
> More importantly, thanks for confirming the widely held believe that...
>
>  "virtually everyone has some financial interest"
>
> I will assume that you are an expert in the area of standards and I
> hope that you do not mind if I pass this comment along as the opinion
> of an expert.
>
> BTW, you might find it interesting that the legal staff of some large
> companies claim that their people have no financial interest in the
> standards work, that they are not enganged in any commercial activity,
> and that they have no influence on commercial markets.

Yes, but you've twisted the words again.  I'm assuming that you're
drawing some conclusion that ``financial interest'' means ``direct
financial gain from standards'' or the company must be ``for-profit''.
This certainly is not true.  If you carefully read my comments, you'd
see that I referred to both producers and consumers.  Here's how some
companies benefit (thus, their financial interest):

 - Users have applications that can be homogonized to
 a single standard.  They have a choice of compilers
 from competing vendors because their product conforms
 to a standard.  In the end, the development costs less
 and the price of their compilers cost less.
 - Vendors can compete more fairly with each other because
 they are all targeting the same language.  Vendors are
 free to add their extensions, but, primarily the features
 of the standard are what they're competing on.  In the
 end, either their return on investment is greater or
 their risks are reduced becuase the requirements (i.e.,
 conforming to a standard) are well understood and they
 are what the customer wants.
 - Journalists and authors may make money writing about
 the standard (books, articles, etc.).  They exist in
 almost every area of interest.
 - Teachers, consultants, and other experts might be
 interested in maintaining the value of their expertise.

This isn't an exhaustive list and some companies fit in more
than one category (e.g., both a user and a vendor).  BTW, having
a financial interest doesn't mean that the company is ``for-profit''.
A church can have financial interest (it wants to make sure its
applications still work on new compilers it buys).

This summary applies to many standards efforts at the national
level.  At the international level, it is somewhat different.
The international representatives (IR) are supposed represent the
national bodies.  The IRs get their direction from TAG (technical
advisory group) meetings.  At the ISO level, only IRs vote.  Both
C and C++ have ``co-located'' meetings (not ``joint'' meetings)
for efficiency reasons (see previous posting).  However, there are
separate portions to handle ISO-specific business, ANSI-specific
business, and other nations'-specific business.  This preserves
both the letter and spirit of each set of rules.

> This is the way the system is supposed to work...it is a simple loop
>
>  Investors -> Business -> Products/Services -> Customers
>   \_<<___/  \_____<<<< Money $$$$ <<<<<<<___/
>
> The cycle or loop is very simple...
>
> Unfortunately, this loop sometimes has researchers involved...sometimes
>  there are University professors involved...sometimes there are
>  government employees involved and politicians...sometimes there
>  are leaders of tax-exempt "churches" involved...sometimes there
>  are citizens of one country speaking for another country...and
>  sometimes there are employees of one company speaking for another
>  company...
>
> This last group seems to want its cake and eat it too...because of the
>  unique positions that either society or their employers grant,
>  they are NOT in a position to participate in the above business
>  cycle...instead of properly positioning themselves in the above
>  cycle they find ways to "influence" the process from the lofty
>  heights that in some cases are granted, tax-free, by society...

Your ``business loop'' might describe ``for-profit'' businesses, but
doesn't describe all the companies that are involved in the standards
process.  You're confusing ``business loop'' with ``financial
interest''.  The fact that I want a standard that, say, allows
me to plug electrical appliances in my house all with the
same wiring and plug type means that I have a financial interest
in electrical products when I have a house built.  Will I
participate in the NEMA standard?  Probably, not because my
financial interest isn't that great (say, $5000 in wiring vs.
$20,000/year participation).  However, if I were a big electrical
contractor building 10,000 homes, (say, $50,000,000 interest),
then I might attend because my financial interest is large.
In either case, my financial interest is represented in the
value of conforming products (wiring and outlets that are the
same).  This doesn't mean that I directly benefit from the
standard, nor does it imply that I'm ``for-profit'' (the house
could have been a church).

> Many businesses (especially software businesses) can not compete with
> people that are using their "day jobs" to influence the standards and
> the market place without having to be responsible for their actions. In
> some cases, their employers have to be responsible for their actions.

I don't really understand your point.  If you're saying that a
professor from XYZ university is on the committee, should its
board of trustees be directly responsible for his/her opinions?
I doubt it.  In most organizations, the representative is chosen
using their own internal procedures (seniority, politics, only one
olunteered for the job, the department that has travel money,
etc.).  If there where conflicts (say, two people wanting to
represent or competing viewpoints that represented the
organization), then the organization would resolve that, not the
standards committee.

In standards, your ``responsibility'' as a voting member is
to: (1) attend meetings, (2) participate in discussion, as
appropriate, (3) to review material sent to you, (4) to
vote with your opinion when called upon, (5) pay your dues.  As
an observer, your only responsibility is to pay your dues.

A technical committee might have 250 participants (members,
their alternates, and observers), but only 70 active participants
with 30-40 voting members.

> >It is *definitely* not worth discussing the copyright issues here.
I've
> >seen this discussion a zillion times (usually, many postings with
mindless
> >dribble about hypotheticals).  Read a book on copyright law, trade
> >secrets, and patents.
>
> How does reading a book replace a discussion of current events?

Yes, a book would get you started on this because, apparently, you
are unfamiliar with some of the basic issues (see your previous
posting).  It is not worth the bandwidth and time to discuss this
here.  Let us know what book you've read when you're done.

> Do these books have reports on the copyright issues of the C++ standard?
>  Or...are we supposed to wait for the traditional press to put
>  their spin on things three months from now...after they are done
>  falling all over Windows '95...

As I said in the previous mailing, you have all the information you
need to find out these issues, especially since your the one with
the primary interest.  Asking us to do this legwork (when it only
matters to you) is akin to clothing and feeding you.

If you *really* were interested, you'd be desribing all the things
you found out with authoritative references.  But as far as I can
tell, you really aren't interested in doing anything yourself,
whether it's picking up the phone, coming to a meeting, addressing
any technical issues.  In fact, your postings all sound like hot
wind.  Why don't you show us you technical credentials by addressing
some point not previously discussed?

> I hope that any business person that has made an investment in time,
> energy, and $$$$ be afforded his or her legal rights to pursue his or
> her business objectives without interference from people that are not
> engaged in the business process.
>
> Again...thank you for stating that the "Standard activity *is* primarily
> about commercial interest". I thank you for your expert opinion on this
> subject.

Yup, sounds like your going to twist those words around (see my
comments above).

> I hope that ALL companies with people engaged in standards activities
> (especially C and C++) make sure that their employees are fully informed
> of their responsibilities to their employer (i.e. company) and the
> country where that company is domiciled.

Most companies are painfully aware of their responsibilities: the
travel cost, lost time, and membersip fees make all managers aware
of this.  At the international level, countries *are* aware of
their IRs because their national bodies direct them.

> Why don't the committees use this forum (Usenet) to actively carry on
> their work...???

Because the membership is transient and the quality of discussion
is low.  Both of these greatly reduce productivity.

You've contributed to much low quality discussion.  Let's see what
kind of high quality discussion you're capable of.  Here's what I
call the ``Fleming/flaming/paranoia/conspiracy'' cycle:

 1.  Do little to validate your reality (i.e., don't
 participate in technical discussion, don't submit papers,
 don't come to meetings).
 2.  Twist the words around into something that smells
 of conspiracy.  It's a no-brainer to create a conspiracy
 theory: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
 conspiracy, or take Y and say I saw Y but Z was happening
 behind the scenes.
 3.  Post something that offends people to get their
 attention.
 4.  Receive much negative comments.
 5.  Feel even more isolated.
 6.  Go to step #1.

It's hard to see how any committee would put up with your
behavior.

Get real!  Contribute to *technical* discussion.

> >Mostly, the public isn't interested.  There are many people that get
> >involved briefly (just so that they can say they were part of
> >the committee) without long-term, meaningful contribution.
>
> How many people do you estimate it takes to get the job done?

For C, it's probably about 40-80 people meeting 3 times a year
for a week each time.  Adding more people doesn't help past
that point (see ``Mythical Man Month'').  However, adding in
observers and alternates, it wouldn't surprise me if C has
150-250 people on its list.  These are people in ANSI X3J11.
I haven't included any of the other countries national bodies
(which are substantial).

> We have heard that the C++ committee has over 250 people.
>  How many of these people actually participate...???

I don't know.  I'm not on that committee.

> >  The standards process is based upon building
> >concensus, public review, and due process.  Technology helps facilitate
> >this, but it's not critical to the process.  Most of the problems are
> >people-based: participation, continuity of membership, concensus
> >building.
> >
>
> Has it been your experience that this consensus is built in the periodic
> meetings...or behind the scenes and prior to the socialization at the
> meeting...???

There are three aspects of the discussion: (1) the paper (delivered
to you via postal mail), (2) the E-mail reflector, (3) the meeting.
Almost all of the concensus building is done in these forums.

> Wouldn't Usenet be a good vehicle for building consensus...???

Not really, see above.  Low quality discussion and transient
members.

>  Why put something in a standard...then...
>   ...write about it in a magazine your buddy
publishes..then..
>   tell the world...everyone has adopted your position...
>  ...without getting any opinions from other parties...

You're really creative in turning everything into a conspiracy.  But,
as I've offered in the previous posting and this posting: contribute!
You are certainly free to submit a paper or comments.  I think this
is the real test of whether or not you're a poser.  If the comments
are technical in nature and address some important need and/or
defect, you are likely to be heard.  If your comments are whiny
and lack technical content, your comments are likely to be
dismissed, which will feed your conspiracy cycle (see steps #4
and #5 above).

> >For any group of people, there is a need for public and
> >private aspects of discussion.  For example, publishing discussions
> >between lawyer and client would inhibit ``honest discussion''.  I
> >think you miss the point: there is a difference between reporting
> >progress and meeting minutes that can be misinterpreted and taken
> >out of context (which you've demonstrated a willingness to do).
> >
> >See you at the next meeting!
>
> ...
> It should be noted that the Internet and Usenet are powerful tools for
> communication. They are an ideal vehicle for standards work because
> many people are dispursed around the world and it is expensive to move
> people to one place.

Just because you have a communication tool, doesn't mean that it
helps.  Usenet isn't ideal because of the transient nature and
low quality discussion.  Nor is it useful because it isn't clear
that the participants are representative.  Another feature that
makes it a poor vehicle is that it requires full-time monitoring
and discussion.  Sometimes, especially in standards work, you
can't get an answer to a question in 24 hours because you have
other work to do at your job.  WG14 meetings are scheduled 2-3
years in advance so that people can schedule appropriately.  With
Robert's Rules of Order, an agenda, and regularly scheduled
meetings in advance, you can make much progress (it's been
demonstrated over the past 100 years).

The Usenet forum is more of a free-for-all that doesn't
fit within this structure.  Until Usenet demonstrates that it
can satisfy the quality requirements *and* be supportive of
the standards process, it won't be a candidate as the primary
mechanism for communication.

> It should also be noted that many of the participants in the standards
> process obviously choose other forms of communication to put their spin
> on the process. They clearly thrive on using the bureaucracy of the
> system to not only perpetuate the process but to make sure that they
> are properly positioned to capitalize on the opportunities.

Conspiracy step 2A: take X and say I didn't witness X so it's a
conspiracy.

Why don't you become a member?  I've asked for you to contribute.
You don't want to do this.  Conspiracy step 1: do little to validate
your reality (i.e., don't participate in technical discussion, don't
submit papers, don't come to meetings).

> Hopefully, the next generation of net-literate people will see that
> these processes are designed to keep the power in the hands of a few
> and not to produce the best technical solution in a reasonable amount
> of time. The result is that society suffers while a few people benefit
> with apparently no regard for their impact on society.

Most net-literate people know how contribute, and they do contribute
if they feel there is sufficient interest.  You ``could have been
a contender'', but chose not to participate.

> Fortunately, society and the new legions of people that communicate
> via the Internet will quickly render this "old school", "good old boy
> club" ineffective. Will that club scream...you bet. Will they try to
> prevent people from publishing and developing alternative approaches..?
> ...you bet...
>  ...will they succeed over the long haul...???
>   ...only time will tell...

Go right ahead an develop an alternative.  There are many that have
tried.  Even corporate executives that have the attitude ``if I
only got some good, smart people and locked them in a room until
they came out with a standard''.  The problems aren't as simple as
getting good people or allowing them to communicate.  Some people
*outside* standards committees see them as taking too much time.
They fault the process, the committees, the members, the subject,
and everything else.  Many committees are experimenting with methods
to improve the process (communication, electronic documents,
electronic balloting).  All outsiders see is the end result and
think ``oh, I could have done that''.  It's a lot of hard work.
Why do you try submitting a paper?

> As a net-izen, you have the opportunity to not only experience the
> changing shape of Cyberspace, but also to help shape the nature of the
> net for future generations...by actively participating in the process,
> you can shape the direction...you do not have to attend a meeting or
> to pay a fee to join an ANSI committee...Usenet is your forum for
> discussing your views...

Generally, first-time participants aren't asked to pay a fee.  I
don't know what the policy is in X3J16 and WG21, but you'd be
welcome at a C meeting.  For C and C++ standards work ANSI (for
US members) and ISO are the forums.  If you're interested in
technical issues submit papers and comments.  If you're interested
in whining, then find a forum outside "comp.std.c".

However, my guess is that your contributions as a ``net-izen''
will turn "comp.std.c" and "comp.std.c++" into moderated newsgroups
(step #5 in the conspiracy cycle).  Your main claim to fame will
be contributing negatively to the discussion and turning the
newsgroups into a moderated discussion -- not impressive credentials
even if you have faith in the net.

> Hopefully, this forum will be used to help produce the best standards
> in the shortest time possible...the goal is not to produce the standard
> which will allow the smallest number of people to gain the largest
> financial advantage...in that respect, this forum is a more open and
> higher potential forum than the ANSI activities which these newsgroups
> cover...

Feel free to do this.  However, it is hard to make you're case
when you're avoiding technical issues.

Contribute technically!  See you at the next meeting!

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

In article <3v07m2$46g@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>> Larry Jones (scjones@thor.sdrc.com) wrote:
>> : ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
>> : distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
>> : someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
>> : the official one.

> Yes, there are many ways to verify that an electronic document is
> authentic.

I agree, but I suspect that the whole issue of keeping the standard tampering
proof is ultimately less of a problem to ANSI than the fact that they derive a
substantial part of their income through sales of the paper standard.

> ANSI should be more concerned with providing information in a useful
> form to a wide audience.

Yes, the interests of a standard would be better served with wide propagation.

> Control only benefits the "few" who would like all of us to believe that they
> act in the best interest of ANSI and therefore US because as a society we
> delegate our "control" to ANSI for safe keeping.

This is nonsense. The C++ community as a whole very much benefits from a
single, worldwide, unfragmented standard.

> Fortunately, the Internet allows US to avoid delegating our control to
> a small group. The structure of ANSI is outmoded yet small groups still
> try to use the policies and procedures that were put in place in the
> pencil and paper days to their advantage.

You are putting too much faith in electronic communications.

> Linux is the result of what can happen when these outmoded systems are
> avoided or abandoned. Linux is a good example of what can be done in an
> open forum where the Internet is used as a powerful communication tool.

The Linux kernel is essentially under the control of a single (highly gifted)
person. This is certainly a system that works, but is hardly appropriate for
an international standard.

> What is somewhat ironic is that the world is quickly passing C++ by as the
> ISO/ANSI process grinds the standard into a useless mass.

Now, I'm sure that you have some statistics to support that statement. You
wouldn't want us to think that you made this up out of thin air, would you?

In article <3v23oe$cnm@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ffarance@aol.com (FFarance) writes:

> First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
> available.

I'm fairly certain that they will, at least for the C++ committee.

The membership list is an ordinary document and all those documents
are available to anyone who wants to purchase a copy.  If nothing else,
every pre-meeting mailing has a membership list in it.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

> From: jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
>
> >The biggest concern is that
> >the minutes are intended as a record of what transpired at the meeting,
> >they are not tutorial in nature.  As such, they do not necessarily
> >contain sufficient background information for people to truly
> >understand the context in which discussions took place or decisions
> >were made.
>
> All information and all forms of communication has this attribute.
>
> I find it interesting that informed people always seem willing to
> protect US from ourselves by not providing information because we
> may not have all of the background or context.

Larry's comments are like a standard disclaimer that, like you point out,
is attached to many forms of documents to give the reader some of the
context.  Here, the context is ``the minutes aren't tutorial (about
C, the standards process, or committees)''.  I think Larry has done a
good job of explaining things that lay people commonly don't understand
or misunderstand.

> >They are also fairly terse and contain a lot of jargon
> >which can make them hard to understand for those outside the standards
> >community.  There was also a concern that broad dissemination of the
> >minutes would stifle honest discussion since people might tend to adopt
> >popular positions instead of expressing their true opinions.
>
> "honest discussion"...what an oxymoron...I bet that came from the
>  "silent majority" of the C and C++ standards advocates...:+)

I'm not sure what your point is here.  Like most meetings, not every
word has been written down.  Although I (personally) don't see any
problems with making the minutes available, some people have concerns.
I don't know what those concerns are, but I do plan on talking about
them at the next meeting.  As Larry pointed out, some people are
concerned about taking items out of context and have these  ``sound
bites'' transformed into an inaccurate representation of what is
going on.  Considering your comments (e.g., ``silent majority'',
``financial interest'', etc.) in this and other postings, I think
you've demonstrated this concern is valid.

> >Your article illustrates some of the confusion and misunderstanding,
> >which gives credence to those concerns.  My personal opinion is that
> >this is easily dealt with by a few explanations and corrections, so I
> >will.

> Great...maybe you can show "them" what real "honest discussion" is...

Why don't you come to a meeting and see for yourself.  I think you'd
find a lot of skilled people, working hard with good intentions.  It's
easy to misinterpret from the outside, especially, when your thoughts
are only based upon meeting minutes.  I've been on the C committee
since the beginning.  Most of the meetings are massive work crunches.
The typical day is from 08:00 to 22:00.  Most lunches, dinners, and
evenings become discussions of current issues.  After all that, your
supposed to have time to call the family, call the office, read your
E-mail, and follow up on problems back at work.  Every meeting has
been exhausting.

> >The groups that met in Denmark are X3J11 and WG14.  X3J11 is the ANSI
> >(American National Standards Institute) subcommittee that is
> >responsible for American standards for C.  WG14 is the ISO
> >(International Organization for Standardization) subcommittee that is
> >responsible for international standards for C.  X3J11 developed the
> >original American C Standard which was later adopted as an
> >International Standard.  The International Standard was then adopted as
> >the official American Standard, so X3J11 no longer has a standard
> >document for which they are responsible -- their responsibility is to
> >act as the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) that assists the US
> >delegation to WG14 form positions.  Since X3J11 contains a substantial
> >body of C expertise, it was decided that it was to both committees'
> >advantage to hold meetings in the same place at the same time with a
> >single chair running both meetings simultaneously whenever possible.

> Who decided this? Do you have a copy of how people voted? Are there
> meeting notes from this decision?

What's your point?  Basically, we have very few resources (technical
experts) in comparison to the workload.  Rather adding on layers of
formality and the extended timeline associated with disjointed meetings,
the committees decided that they would meet at the same time to save
time and travel expense (a big issue for many companies) while still
operating within the ANSI and ISO procedures.  While I'm sure we
could find a copy of the minutes where this was discussed (I think it
was in 1993), I think ``efficiency'' was the main concern.  Had we
done otherwise, you might be complaining of how inefficient we were
and why can't you just meet at the same time.

> To avoid the confusion. How about using a vertical format which shows
> which people are part of which group as well as which company and
country
> they represent, etc.

Good suggestion.  I'm sure some one (Larry?) will bring it up a the next
meeting (maybe you?).

> >In general, some of the attendees are X3J11 members, some are parts of
> >official delegations to the WG14 meeting, some are non-members.  X3J11
> >has an official attendance list referred to above that lists each
> >member, who they represent, and their membership status (an
> >organization may have one principal member and as many alternates as
> >they desire, only one is allowed to vote; members are not entitled to
> >vote unless a representative has attended at least two of the last
> >three meetings; observing members are never entitled to vote).  This is
> >a physical piece of paper that is circulated at the meeting and each
> >member marks that they are attending and whether they are voting or
> >not.  A copy of this sheet is attached to the printed minutes, but it
> >is not included in the electronic copy (sorry).
>
> Is the sheet so cryptic that it can not be translated to ASCII...???
> Should we scan it an post it on a Web page...???
>  I have an HP 3C which I will be happy to donate to the cause...:+)

What legitimate purpose does this serve for the process of standards
formation?  I'm not sure of what the rules are with respect to publishing
voting records.  Again, (personally) I don't have a problem with this,
but I would guess this is more of a sensitive area, just like voting
records of individuals.  Before you start flaming, I'll say that it will
be raised at the next meeting.  My guess is that it won't be published.

If you're really curious, just purchase the mailing.  Of course,
purchasing
the mailing doesn't mean that you are free to redistribute it.  I think
it would be helpful to us to understand your motivation here so that there
is a rationale for this request, e.g., so what will you do with the
information?

> >> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >> NOTE C++ INFO at the C Meeting
> >> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >
> >Note that this is reported under "Liason Activities".  Since many
> >standards are related to each other, each standards committee has a
> >number of liasons to other standards committees.  Some of these liasons
> >are official, where the parent standards organization requires the two
> >committees to coordinate their activities, other are less official,
> >some are completely unofficial.  Since C and C++ are so closely
> >related, their liason is of the first kind -- we are required to
> >coordinate our activities.
>
> >Tom Plum is the official liason between the
> >committees who generally keeps us informed of what each other are
> >doing, Bill Plauger as convener of WG14 is responsible for
> >communicating official comments from the C committee to the C++
> >committee.
>
>
> Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
> the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
> has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?
>
> BTW, do not take this the wrong way. If Tom Plum and Bill Plauger
> have devoted their time and effort to this work and if they have
cornered
> this market, then I suppose that they deserve to reap the financial
> rewards of their efforts. This is no different than Microsoft cornering
> the DOS and Windows market.

I think your missing a basic point about standards activity (even outside
information technology): virtually everyone has some financial interest
(producers and consumers).  It's supposed to be this way.  If your company
has enough interest (whether compiler vendor, user, or otherwise), you'd
probably be attending the meetings.  You should attend a meeting anyway
to see what it's like.

> I imagine that many people would like to own the copyright on the ANSI
> standard C++ class library (or parts of it). BTW, I do not think that it
> is clear which parts are copyrighted and to what extent the copyright
> applies. For example, are the member function names copyrighted? Are
> the class names copyrighted?

I don't know the details of the copyright issues, but it's probably safe
to say:

 - Bill Plauger has a copyright on the book he authored.
 - Bill Plauger doesn't give the software away for commercial
 purpose (like many packages on the Internet), so he gives
 a name and address of where you can purchase it.
 - If Tom Plum and Bill Plauger find it profitable to work
 together (like IBM and Apple), so be it.

It is *definitely* not worth discussing the copyright issues here.  I've
seen this discussion a zillion times (usually, many postings with mindless
dribble about hypotheticals).  Read a book on copyright law, trade
secrets, and patents.

FYI, AT&T held the copyright on ANSI C until it was published as an
official standard.  This is because ANSI C was based upon K&R.

> It is still not clear to me what happened to HP and the STL library. HP
> claims that they pursued patent rights and have now either given up
those
> rights or placed the library in the public domain.
>
> When a national or international standard is developed I think that it
> is important to inform everyone of the claims that are made regarding
> the ownership of the intellectual property (or intellectual capital as
> some people prefer to call it).

Standards are required to have information with respect to patent claims
(I don't have the exact ANSI or ISO wording handy).  Since a standard is
publicly available, you can't claim any trade secrets.  Copyrights are
owned by ANSI, ISO, IEC, and so on.

> @@@@@@@@@@@
> >> >  *** The following people tentatively volunteered to review parts
of
> the
> >> >      C++ Working Paper:  Plauger (library), Farance (templates,
> >> >      exceptions), Thomas (floating point), Benito (overloading,
> >> >      exceptions).
> >> >
> >> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >>
> >> The C++ and C overlap...???
> >
> >As far as I know, none of those people (with the possible exception of
> >Plauger) are actual members of the C++ committee -- they are simply
> >interested members of the C committee who volunteered to review the
> >draft C++ standard from a C perspective.
>
> Again, if we had a clear list of who is on what committee this would
> be easy to check. On one hand the C and C++ committees keep pointing out
> that all of this standards work is very confusing and probably can not
> be easily understood by the common man. On the other hand, it seems very
> to some people that there only a few people involved and these people
> are clearly well positioned to reap huge financial rewards when the
effort
> is complete.

First, I'm fairly certain that X3 will not make the lists of members
available.  They'd be asking what purpose you had in mind.  Members
have a right to privacy too -- they don't want to receive unsolicited
junk mail, phone calls, and so on (just like many readers would be
upset to have the phone numbers, names, and addresses distributed
widely).  If your purpose is to participate, they you don't need the
lists -- just show up.  If your purpose is to harass, they you don't
need the lists.

Second, as far as I can tell (based upon asking members directly),
Larry's comments are accurate.

> Again, please do not misinterpret my comments. I do not think there is
> anything wrong with people benefiting financially from their efforts.

Why are you complaining?  Standard activity *is*, primarily about
commercial interest --producers and consumers (I classify teaching
as a consumer issue).  Academic issues are important, too, but are
not the main focus of standards activity.

> >> Note, the recent C++ standard was initially only distributed in
Postscript
> >> and it took about a month for people to get it converted to various
forms
> >> that are more useful. It looks like the C standard is going to be in
> >> SGML as noted above.
> >>
> >> All standards bodies should make it easy for people to read and
search
> >> the documents. It is not clear why the original C++ document was in a
> >> form that made it hard to read. Because the public comment period was
> >> very short, it was not beneficial to waste people's time trying to
> convert
> >> the document. ANSI seems to have outdated approaches that favor
leaving
> >> control in the hands of a few...
> >
> >ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
> >distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
> >someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
> >the official one.
>
> Maybe we should first distribute the standard and then see if this
> happens.

Well, ANSI and ISO are interested in copyright issues, too -- another
type of control.  You've shot yourself in the foot if you decide that
you trust everyone won't make a copy of the standard and then discover
it's widely distributed for free.  Not only do you have little practical
recourse, you have little legal recourse since you encouraged copying.
You'll note that the distributed copies of the document (electronically
or paper) are ``for the purposes of standards formation''.

While I agree that standards should be publicly available, I'm not it
the position of making that decision.  Some people believe it is
easier to ask forgiveness than permission.  I think the opposite is
true here.

> P.J. Plauger published a book called The DRAFT Standard C++ Library,
> ISBN 0-13-117003-1. The cover states, "BASED ON DRAFT PROPOSED ANSI/ISO
> C++ STANDARD". The book carries a 1995 copyright but was published
> in September of 1994.

What's your point?

> Some people claim that the book does not describe the ANSI C++ standard.
> One poster here claims that the book was released early because of a
> contract commitment with the publisher and the ANSI schedule had to be
> ignored in order to satisfy the terms of the contract. The DRAFT
standard
> released in April of 1995 carries a copyright by P.J. Plauger. The book
> contains an order form to order the source code library from:

Since you have the publisher, address, and telephone number, why don't
you make a couple phone calls and report back to us.  You clearly have
a burning interest in this.

> The DRAFT ANSI standard was of course apparently released from AT&T
> via an ftp site at research.att.com. It is not clear if the book was
> used as the base for the standard or the standard was used as the base
> for the book.
>
> If the standard was used as the base for the book and the software being
> sold above, then I suppose that all companies should have the same
access
> to the standard in other than Postscript format.

When you report back to us, you'll have the answer to this question.
Hypotheticals with little information are mindless dribble.

> If the book and software being sold above instead was used as the base
> for the standard, then one has to ask how or why the committee came to
> the conclusion that this particular class library be used for the
standard.
> I assume that the committee has minutes from the meetings where these
> decisions were made.

Prior art is an important issue.  If you have vendors that have
implemented
features, there is weight in their proposals because they've demonstrated
feasibility.  I'll tell you something that *doesn't* happen in meetings
like this: ``you vote for my proposal so that I'll make money and I'll
vote for yours''.  Usually, most of the discussions on major issues are
particularly ``lively''.  Although each vendor may have some business
interest at stake, almost all of the discussion is technical.  I am
not familiar with the delibarations of WG21.  However, my guess is that
in a room full of about 100 smart technical people, decisions won't be
made on the financial success of a book.

> Again, everyone that reads these newsgroups should applaud you for your
> efforts to help to create an open forum in national and international
> standards.
>
> Yes, I can understand why people and companies would advise you that it
is
> not prudent to inform the world about the standards efforts. This could
> allow other companies into the market earlier and could cause the
limited
> financial pie to be divided.

I think you've misinterpreted what has been said.  I think most companies
and technical committees would be pleased to have the public understand
what is going on.  What Larry did say was that there was concern about
the distribution of the minutes, not concern about reporting progress
of the committee (which is being reported in several journals).

Mostly, the public isn't interested.  There are many people that get
involved briefly (just so that they can say they were part of
the committee) without long-term, meaningful contribution.  The
facts are that a standard takes about 5-10 years to produce.  To get
high quality development, you need a stable membership base, which is
why ANSI is based upon company membership.  Individuals, many times, are
transient members.  When you have problems that take 2-3 years to solve
properly, it doesn't help to have your membership in flux.  Even with
the same set of people, occassionally, new information causes people
to change their minds.  With transient membership, little progress would
be made.  In fact, if the committees had transient membership, the
result might just be the company who had the largest market share --
not a great outcome.  This is why ANSI has voting rules that require
attendence at 2 of the last 3 meetings.

> It is ironic that the systems that were put in place by our parents to
> "level the playing fields" and to keep everyone honest are now being
used
> to prevent the Internet from playing that role. I wonder if a few years
from
> now, another system will not evolve to allow people to once again engage
> in "honest discussion" that is inhibited by the systems supported by the
> Internet...maybe it will not take that long...maybe in August...:+)

I don't see how you draw this conclusion.  The Internet gives much more
access and distribution to committees and interested parties.  Just
because you have a new technology (e.g., the Internet) doesn't mean
your problems go away.  The standards process is based upon building
concensus, public review, and due process.  Technology helps facilitate
this, but it's not critical to the process.  Most of the problems are
people-based: participation, continuity of membership, concensus
building.

For any group of people, there is a need for public and
private aspects of discussion.  For example, publishing discussions
between lawyer and client would inhibit ``honest discussion''.  I
think you miss the point: there is a difference between reporting
progress and meeting minutes that can be misinterpreted and taken
out of context (which you've demonstrated a willingness to do).

See you at the next meeting!

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

In article 46g@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

...a few inaccuracies that beg to be corrected:

>In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
>Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
>the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
>has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?

Yes, it is the same Tom Plum.  But, note that Plauger's copyrights do
not prevent you or I (or anyone) from developing their own implementations
of the standard.  If it did, then everyone developing a C++ compiler--
from Microsoft, to Sun, to Tartan Labs, to GNU--would owe a cut to P. J.
Plauger.  I'm sure any representative of these entities can confirm that
they are not paying Plauger a blessed thing.

--
Marc Shepherd
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com

In article <3ufqoa$284@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
> The following was excerpted from the recent meeting notes published by
> the people meeting in Denmark to discuss the future of C (and C++).
> [...]
> It is still unclear why the C++ committee(s) do not publish information
> like the following in an open forum.

I hasten to point out that it was "published" by me acting as an
individual member of X3J11 -- neither X3J11 nor WG14 officially
approved that action and there are some committee members who feel that
it was inappropriate or at least unwise.  The biggest concern is that
the minutes are intended as a record of what transpired at the meeting,
they are not tutorial in nature.  As such, they do not necessarily
contain sufficient background information for people to truly
understand the context in which discussions took place or decisions
were made.  They are also fairly terse and contain a lot of jargon
which can make them hard to understand for those outside the standards
community.  There was also a concern that broad dissemination of the
minutes would stifle honest discussion since people might tend to adopt
popular positions instead of expressing their true opinions.

Your article illustrates some of the confusion and misunderstanding,
which gives credence to those concerns.  My personal opinion is that
this is easily dealt with by a few explanations and corrections, so I
will.

The groups that met in Denmark are X3J11 and WG14.  X3J11 is the ANSI
(American National Standards Institute) subcommittee that is
responsible for American standards for C.  WG14 is the ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) subcommittee that is
responsible for international standards for C.  X3J11 developed the
original American C Standard which was later adopted as an
International Standard.  The International Standard was then adopted as
the official American Standard, so X3J11 no longer has a standard
document for which they are responsible -- their responsibility is to
act as the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) that assists the US
delegation to WG14 form positions.  Since X3J11 contains a substantial
body of C expertise, it was decided that it was to both committees'
advantage to hold meetings in the same place at the same time with a
single chair running both meetings simultaneously whenever possible.

> >      Attendees introduced themselves.  Attending the meeting were:  John
> >      Benito, Peter Cordsen, Jutta Degener, Frank Farance, Rex Jaeschke,
> >      David Keaton, Ed Keizer, John Kwan, Tom MacDonald, Neil Martin,
> >      Randy Meyers, Dave Mooney, P. J. Plauger, Tom Plum, Jim Thomas, Keld
> >      Simonsen, Ted Van Sickle, Douglas Walls.
> >
> >      A copy of the attendance sheet of X3J11 members is attached to these
> >      minutes.
> >
> >      WG14 members in attendance were:  P. J. Plauger (WG14 convenor),
> >      John Benito (US), Peter Cordsen (DS), Jutta Degener (TU Berlin), Ed
> >      Keizer (NNI), Neil Martin (BSI), Keld Simonsen (DS).
> > [...]
> >      After the attendance list was circulated, MacDonald announced 12
> >      eligible voting members of X3J11 were present, and that constituted
> >      a quorum.
>
> Only 12 of the 18 above are evidently eligible to vote...
>  ...it is not clear who they are...
> [...]
> It might be easier if the lists were verticle and included the
> country each person represents, as well as the company they represent.

Because there are two simultaneous meetings, this is indeed confusing.
In general, some of the attendees are X3J11 members, some are parts of
official delegations to the WG14 meeting, some are non-members.  X3J11
has an official attendance list referred to above that lists each
member, who they represent, and their membership status (an
organization may have one principal member and as many alternates as
they desire, only one is allowed to vote; members are not entitled to
vote unless a representative has attended at least two of the last
three meetings; observing members are never entitled to vote).  This is
a physical piece of paper that is circulated at the meeting and each
member marks that they are attending and whether they are voting or
not.  A copy of this sheet is attached to the printed minutes, but it
is not included in the electronic copy (sorry).  So, the 12 voting
members referred to above are voting members of X3J11.  The list of
WG14 attendees indicates which people are official designates to the
WG14 meeting and the country they represent (I agree that this should
be done more consistently -- the affiliations noted above are a
mishmash of countries, national standards organizations, and a
university).

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> NOTE C++ INFO at the C Meeting
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Note that this is reported under "Liason Activities".  Since many
standards are related to each other, each standards committee has a
number of liasons to other standards committees.  Some of these liasons
are official, where the parent standards organization requires the two
committees to coordinate their activities, other are less official,
some are completely unofficial.  Since C and C++ are so closely
related, their liason is of the first kind -- we are required to
coordinate our activities.  Tom Plum is the official liason between the
committees who generally keeps us informed of what each other are
doing, Bill Plauger as convener of WG14 is responsible for
communicating official comments from the C committee to the C++
committee.

> >  *** The following people tentatively volunteered to review parts of the
> >      C++ Working Paper:  Plauger (library), Farance (templates,
> >      exceptions), Thomas (floating point), Benito (overloading,
> >      exceptions).
> >
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> The C++ and C overlap...???

As far as I know, none of those people (with the possible exception of
Plauger) are actual members of the C++ committee -- they are simply
interested members of the C committee who volunteered to review the
draft C++ standard from a C perspective.

> Note, the recent C++ standard was initially only distributed in Postscript
> and it took about a month for people to get it converted to various forms
> that are more useful. It looks like the C standard is going to be in
> SGML as noted above.
>
> All standards bodies should make it easy for people to read and search
> the documents. It is not clear why the original C++ document was in a
> form that made it hard to read. Because the public comment period was
> very short, it was not beneficial to waste people's time trying to convert
> the document. ANSI seems to have outdated approaches that favor leaving
> control in the hands of a few...

ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
the official one.  Unfortunately, I know of no format that is easy to
read and search on-line which is also write-only.  PostScript is
probably the best compromise since, while it is not searchable, the
tools to view it (either on-line or on paper) are wide-spread and it is
very difficult to modify in a non-obvious fashion.  I think it's safe to
say that the draft C Standard won't be available outside the committee
in its SGML format, either.

> Great news...a public web site...what about Usenet also...???
>  how about:
>   comp.std.c
>   comp.std.c++

This is still to be determined.  My feeling is that a public web site
is apt to be a good bit more public than comp.std.c.  I believe that
comp.std.c is a fairly small audience with a strong interest in both
the standard and the standardization process, whereas the web site will
probably be frequented by a lot of C programmers with little interest in
the standardization process and only a passing interest in the standard
as an indication of what will be in the next release of their compilers
rather than as the formal definition of the language.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
This sounds suspiciously like one of Dad's plots to build my character.
-- Calvin

Larry Jones (scjones@thor.sdrc.com) wrote:
: ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
: distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
: someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
: the official one.  Unfortunately, I know of no format that is easy to
: read and search on-line which is also write-only.  PostScript is
: probably the best compromise since, while it is not searchable, the
: tools to view it (either on-line or on paper) are wide-spread and it is
: very difficult to modify in a non-obvious fashion.  I think it's safe to
: say that the draft C Standard won't be available outside the committee
: in its SGML format, either.

How about using a public key signature?

--
Stephen Baynes                              baynes@mulsoc2.serigate.philips.nl
Philips Semiconductors Ltd
Southampton                                 My views are my own.
United Kingdom

In article <DC7MEy.92v@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl>,
baynes@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl says...
>
>Larry Jones (scjones@thor.sdrc.com) wrote:
>: ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
>: distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
>: someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
>: the official one.  Unfortunately, I know of no format that is easy to
>: read and search on-line which is also write-only.  PostScript is
>: probably the best compromise since, while it is not searchable, the
>: tools to view it (either on-line or on paper) are wide-spread and it is
>: very difficult to modify in a non-obvious fashion.  I think it's safe to
>: say that the draft C Standard won't be available outside the committee
>: in its SGML format, either.
>
>How about using a public key signature?
>
>--
>Stephen Baynes
baynes@mulsoc2.serigate.philips.nl
>Philips Semiconductors Ltd
>Southampton                                 My views are my own.
>United Kingdom
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yes, there are many ways to verify that an electronic document is
authentic. AT&T Bell Labs has been publishing results of their research
on "electronic watermarking" where they propose to shift the characters
around slightly in a document via extra white space to create a "mark".
(see http://www.att.com)

Also, a simple block of text could follow the document with the word count,
line count, white-space count, capital letter count, etc.

ANSI should be more concerned with providing information in a useful
form to a wide audience. Control only benefits the "few" who would like all
of us to believe that they act in the best interest of ANSI and therefore
US because as a society we delegate our "control" to ANSI for safe keeping.

Fortunately, the Internet allows US to avoid delegating our control to
a small group. The structure of ANSI is outmoded yet small groups still
try to use the policies and procedures that were put in place in the
pencil and paper days to their advantage.

Linux is the result of what can happen when these outmoded systems are
avoided or abandoned. Linux is a good example of what can be done in an
open forum where the Internet is used as a powerful communication tool.

What is somewhat ironic is that the world is quickly passing C++ by as the
ISO/ANSI process grinds the standard into a useless mass. I think that
people sometimes refer to this as being tripped up in one's underware..:+)

Look how quickly Java has entered the scene (see http://java.sun.com). If
the Java developers are smart, they will follow the Linux path rather than
the C++ path. Maybe that path will not put a lot of dollars into the hands
of a few, but it will more quickly allow society to benefit from the
inventions of the bright software engineers at Sun and other companies.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

> From: baynes@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl (Stephen Baynes)
>
> Larry Jones (scjones@thor.sdrc.com) wrote:
> : ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem
with
> : distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
> : someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
> : the official one. ...
> How about using a public key signature?

It's hard to recalculate the signature when you medium is non-electronic
(e.g., paper).  See my posting in the thread ``On-line version of
standard available'' in "comp.std.c".  In short, the problem isn't
a technical one (e.g., public keys, distribution format).  The problem
is ANSI and ISO are *overly* dependent upon book sales, i.e., it's
an organizational problem.  We like posing techinical solutions to
problems because that is what we are good at.  While there might be
some technology associated with making the standard available (e.g.,
a reader that charges you for use or makes sure you don't copy the
document), the technology is pretty much an afterthought and only a
tiny portion of the solution.  The only way technical solutions are
going to be considered is if there are part of an organizational
solution -- many of us don't have the patience, skill, or politics
to solve the organizational problem.

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor

In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
>In article <3ufqoa$284@News1.mcs.net>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>> The following was excerpted from the recent meeting notes published by
>> the people meeting in Denmark to discuss the future of C (and C++).
>> [...]
>> It is still unclear why the C++ committee(s) do not publish information
>> like the following in an open forum.
>
>I hasten to point out that it was "published" by me acting as an
>individual member of X3J11 -- neither X3J11 nor WG14 officially
>approved that action and there are some committee members who feel that
>it was inappropriate or at least unwise.
@@@@@@@

I assume that these committee members will state their concerns in their
ANSI notes, in this forum, or in other publications they use to express
their views. If not, then I suggest that you summarize their concerns
here.

You should be applauded for your efforts....\/\/\/\/\/\/... :+)

@@@@@@@

>The biggest concern is that
>the minutes are intended as a record of what transpired at the meeting,
>they are not tutorial in nature.  As such, they do not necessarily
>contain sufficient background information for people to truly
>understand the context in which discussions took place or decisions
>were made.

@@@@@@@

All information and all forms of communication has this attribute.

I find it interesting that informed people always seem willing to
protect US from ourselves by not providing information because we
may not have all of the background or context.

@@@@@@@

>They are also fairly terse and contain a lot of jargon
>which can make them hard to understand for those outside the standards
>community.  There was also a concern that broad dissemination of the
>minutes would stifle honest discussion since people might tend to adopt
>popular positions instead of expressing their true opinions.
>
@@@@@@@

"honest discussion"...what an oxymoron...I bet that came from the
 "silent majority" of the C and C++ standards advocates...:+)

@@@@@@@

>Your article illustrates some of the confusion and misunderstanding,
>which gives credence to those concerns.  My personal opinion is that
>this is easily dealt with by a few explanations and corrections, so I
>will.
>
@@@@@@

Great...maybe you can show "them" what real "honest discussion" is...

@@@@@@

>The groups that met in Denmark are X3J11 and WG14.  X3J11 is the ANSI
>(American National Standards Institute) subcommittee that is
>responsible for American standards for C.  WG14 is the ISO
>(International Organization for Standardization) subcommittee that is
>responsible for international standards for C.  X3J11 developed the
>original American C Standard which was later adopted as an
>International Standard.  The International Standard was then adopted as
>the official American Standard, so X3J11 no longer has a standard
>document for which they are responsible -- their responsibility is to
>act as the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) that assists the US
>delegation to WG14 form positions.  Since X3J11 contains a substantial
>body of C expertise, it was decided that it was to both committees'
>advantage to hold meetings in the same place at the same time with a
>single chair running both meetings simultaneously whenever possible.
@@@@@@@

Who decided this? Do you have a copy of how people voted? Are there
meeting notes from this decision?

@@@@@@@
>
>> >      Attendees introduced themselves.  Attending the meeting were:
John
>> >      Benito, Peter Cordsen, Jutta Degener, Frank Farance, Rex Jaeschke,
>> >      David Keaton, Ed Keizer, John Kwan, Tom MacDonald, Neil Martin,
>> >      Randy Meyers, Dave Mooney, P. J. Plauger, Tom Plum, Jim Thomas,
Keld
>> >      Simonsen, Ted Van Sickle, Douglas Walls.
>> >
>> >      A copy of the attendance sheet of X3J11 members is attached to
these
>> >      minutes.
>> >
>> >      WG14 members in attendance were:  P. J. Plauger (WG14 convenor),
>> >      John Benito (US), Peter Cordsen (DS), Jutta Degener (TU Berlin),
Ed
>> >      Keizer (NNI), Neil Martin (BSI), Keld Simonsen (DS).
>> > [...]
>> >      After the attendance list was circulated, MacDonald announced 12
>> >      eligible voting members of X3J11 were present, and that
constituted
>> >      a quorum.
>>
>> Only 12 of the 18 above are evidently eligible to vote...
>>       ...it is not clear who they are...
>> [...]
>> It might be easier if the lists were verticle and included the
>> country each person represents, as well as the company they represent.
>
>Because there are two simultaneous meetings, this is indeed confusing.
@@@@@@@@

To avoid the confusion. How about using a vertical format which shows
which people are part of which group as well as which company and country
they represent, etc.

@@@@@@@@

>In general, some of the attendees are X3J11 members, some are parts of
>official delegations to the WG14 meeting, some are non-members.  X3J11
>has an official attendance list referred to above that lists each
>member, who they represent, and their membership status (an
>organization may have one principal member and as many alternates as
>they desire, only one is allowed to vote; members are not entitled to
>vote unless a representative has attended at least two of the last
>three meetings; observing members are never entitled to vote).  This is
>a physical piece of paper that is circulated at the meeting and each
>member marks that they are attending and whether they are voting or
>not.  A copy of this sheet is attached to the printed minutes, but it
>is not included in the electronic copy (sorry).
@@@@@@@

Is the sheet so cryptic that it can not be translated to ASCII...???
Should we scan it an post it on a Web page...???
 I have an HP 3C which I will be happy to donate to the cause...:+)

@@@@@@@

>  So, the 12 voting
>members referred to above are voting members of X3J11.  The list of
>WG14 attendees indicates which people are official designates to the
>WG14 meeting and the country they represent (I agree that this should
>be done more consistently -- the affiliations noted above are a
>mishmash of countries, national standards organizations, and a
>university).
>
@@@@@@

Yes, even though ASCII characters are cumbersome, they can be used
to easily create lists that most humans can understand. When magazines
publish information, they often use graphics and tables. With a little
cutting and pasting, you can easily package the information. After all,
it appears that you are only dealing with about 20 people, unlike the
200+ people that are supposedly involved in the C++ standards work.

@@@@@@

>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>> NOTE C++ INFO at the C Meeting
>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Note that this is reported under "Liason Activities".  Since many
>standards are related to each other, each standards committee has a
>number of liasons to other standards committees.  Some of these liasons
>are official, where the parent standards organization requires the two
>committees to coordinate their activities, other are less official,
>some are completely unofficial.  Since C and C++ are so closely
>related, their liason is of the first kind -- we are required to
>coordinate our activities.

>Tom Plum is the official liason between the
>committees who generally keeps us informed of what each other are
>doing, Bill Plauger as convener of WG14 is responsible for
>communicating official comments from the C committee to the C++
>committee.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@

Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?

BTW, do not take this the wrong way. If Tom Plum and Bill Plauger
have devoted their time and effort to this work and if they have cornered
this market, then I suppose that they deserve to reap the financial
rewards of their efforts. This is no different than Microsoft cornering
the DOS and Windows market.

I imagine that many people would like to own the copyright on the ANSI
standard C++ class library (or parts of it). BTW, I do not think that it
is clear which parts are copyrighted and to what extent the copyright
applies. For example, are the member function names copyrighted? Are
the class names copyrighted?

It is still not clear to me what happened to HP and the STL library. HP
claims that they pursued patent rights and have now either given up those
rights or placed the library in the public domain.

When a national or international standard is developed I think that it
is important to inform everyone of the claims that are made regarding
the ownership of the intellectual property (or intellectual capital as
some people prefer to call it).

@@@@@@@@@@@
>> >  *** The following people tentatively volunteered to review parts of
the
>> >      C++ Working Paper:  Plauger (library), Farance (templates,
>> >      exceptions), Thomas (floating point), Benito (overloading,
>> >      exceptions).
>> >
>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>> The C++ and C overlap...???
>
>As far as I know, none of those people (with the possible exception of
>Plauger) are actual members of the C++ committee -- they are simply
>interested members of the C committee who volunteered to review the
>draft C++ standard from a C perspective.
>
@@@@@

Again, if we had a clear list of who is on what committee this would
be easy to check. On one hand the C and C++ committees keep pointing out
that all of this standards work is very confusing and probably can not
be easily understood by the common man. On the other hand, it seems very
to some people that there only a few people involved and these people
are clearly well positioned to reap huge financial rewards when the effort
is complete.

Again, please do not misinterpret my comments. I do not think there is
anything wrong with people benefiting financially from their efforts.

What I do think is wrong is people running around saying...
 "financial benefit?...who me...???...I am an academic..."
  "not me...I am Snow White..."
  "my company...???...No, they have no financial interest"
   "commerical activity?...I never get involved"
   "you must mean company XYZ..."
 "Oh the standards work...???...no there is no money in that"
  "it is a lot of hard work and travel"
   "Monterey, California, Tokyo, Japan, etc..."
  "Nah...it is not worth it...but I keep doing it..."
   ...24 hours per day..."
 "financial gain...???"
 "you must be talking about Joe Blow..."
  "...Oh yes...Joe Blow pays me..."
   "well that is different..."
    "...I have to eat..."
  "Joe Blow makes all the money..."
 "actually, XYZ Corp. makes all the money..."
  "there is no money in standards..."
@@@@@

>> Note, the recent C++ standard was initially only distributed in
Postscript
>> and it took about a month for people to get it converted to various forms
>> that are more useful. It looks like the C standard is going to be in
>> SGML as noted above.
>>
>> All standards bodies should make it easy for people to read and search
>> the documents. It is not clear why the original C++ document was in a
>> form that made it hard to read. Because the public comment period was
>> very short, it was not beneficial to waste people's time trying to
convert
>> the document. ANSI seems to have outdated approaches that favor leaving
>> control in the hands of a few...
>
>ANSI is very concerned about control, and rightly so.  The problem with
>distributing a standard or draft in an easily modified form is that
>someone might well make changes and distribute the modified version as
>the official one.
@@@@

Maybe we should first distribute the standard and then see if this
happens.

Why isn't ANSI worried about people making copies of the paper versions
and inserting new pages and distributing the work as the standard.

P.J. Plauger published a book called The DRAFT Standard C++ Library,
ISBN 0-13-117003-1. The cover states, "BASED ON DRAFT PROPOSED ANSI/ISO
C++ STANDARD". The book carries a 1995 copyright but was published
in September of 1994.

Some people claim that the book does not describe the ANSI C++ standard.
One poster here claims that the book was released early because of a
contract commitment with the publisher and the ANSI schedule had to be
ignored in order to satisfy the terms of the contract. The DRAFT standard
released in April of 1995 carries a copyright by P.J. Plauger. The book
contains an order form to order the source code library from:

  Plum Hall Inc.
  P.O. Box 44610
  Kamuela, Hawaii 96743-9935

  more information can be obtained from:

  info@plumhall.com

The DRAFT ANSI standard was of course apparently released from AT&T
via an ftp site at research.att.com. It is not clear if the book was
used as the base for the standard or the standard was used as the base
for the book.

If the standard was used as the base for the book and the software being
sold above, then I suppose that all companies should have the same access
to the standard in other than Postscript format.

If the book and software being sold above instead was used as the base
for the standard, then one has to ask how or why the committee came to
the conclusion that this particular class library be used for the standard.
I assume that the committee has minutes from the meetings where these
decisions were made.

@@@@
>Unfortunately, I know of no format that is easy to
>read and search on-line which is also write-only.  PostScript is
>probably the best compromise since, while it is not searchable, the
>tools to view it (either on-line or on paper) are wide-spread and it is
>very difficult to modify in a non-obvious fashion.  I think it's safe to
>say that the draft C Standard won't be available outside the committee
>in its SGML format, either.
>
>> Great news...a public web site...what about Usenet also...???
>>       how about:
>>               comp.std.c
>>               comp.std.c++
>
>This is still to be determined.  My feeling is that a public web site
>is apt to be a good bit more public than comp.std.c.  I believe that
>comp.std.c is a fairly small audience with a strong interest in both
>the standard and the standardization process, whereas the web site will
>probably be frequented by a lot of C programmers with little interest in
>the standardization process and only a passing interest in the standard
>as an indication of what will be in the next release of their compilers
>rather than as the formal definition of the language.
@@@@@@@

Yes, plus the Web site has the "read mostly" attribute. Very few web
sites offer people the capability of submitting comments, etc.

Sun's Java web site (http://java.sun.com) has this open forum approach.
This is probably one reason why hundreds of companies are jumping on the
Java band-wagon which is quickly rolling past C++.

@@@@@@@
>----
>Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
>larry.jones@sdrc.com
>This sounds suspiciously like one of Dad's plots to build my character.
>-- Calvin
@@@@@@@

Again, everyone that reads these newsgroups should applaud you for your
efforts to help to create an open forum in national and international
standards.

Yes, I can understand why people and companies would advise you that it is
not prudent to inform the world about the standards efforts. This could
allow other companies into the market earlier and could cause the limited
financial pie to be divided.

It is ironic that the systems that were put in place by our parents to
"level the playing fields" and to keep everyone honest are now being used
to prevent the Internet from playing that role. I wonder if a few years from
now, another system will not evolve to allow people to once again engage
in "honest discussion" that is inhibited by the systems supported by the
Internet...maybe it will not take that long...maybe in August...:+)

@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The following was excerpted from the recent meeting notes published by
the people meeting in Denmark to discuss the future of C (and C++).
Note there is a recent article in the C/C++ issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal
on some of the C/C++ standards processes.

It is still unclear why the C++ committee(s) do not publish information
like the following in an open forum. Some have suggested that head-hunters
would be all over these people if they discovered that they are experts
in C++. It might be interesting to find out how the C people have avoided
these head-hunters.

In some cases, it appears that the C people are the same as the C++ people.
More information will be posted here on the C++ discussions reported from
the C meeting. Some people have claimed that there is no intention to
merge C and C++. This seems like the major issue facing the C committee
which may feel the pressure from the C++ committee, which may be some of
the same people...

In my opinion, the eventual merger of C and C++ is a done deal. It is
a shame in a way because C is a wonderful language that has served many
people for many years. It is becoming clear that only a small group of
people have enough interest in C to keep the fire burning. With the
market hysteria surrounding C++, C will probably not be able to survive
in tact.

As some people have pointed out...who cares about all of this standards
stuff...if you like C, program in C...unfortunately, standards influence
governments and governments influence companies and educational systems...
it seems a shame, that a very small group of people are in a position
to influence where the world goes in this regard...

I have suggested many times that the C and C++ standards work be moved
to the open forums supported by Usenet and the Internet. If LINUX could
be developed in this forum, then C and C++ can be steered via this forum.
It is unfortunate that a few people seem intent on preventing the open
forums of the Internet from being used to shape the future of important
topics, such as computer language standards...

...fortunately, some of the C standards people appear to be more willing
to use this forum...will this save C...I doubt it...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In article <3udssr$32j@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>
>Please note that these minutes are preliminary and subject to
>correction.
[trim]
>                                                             WG14/N434
>                                                             X3J11/95-035
>                                                             16 July 1995
>
>                           WG14/X3J11 Meeting Minutes
>                                12-16 June 1995
>
>      Dansk Standard
>      Baunegaardsvej 73
>      DK-2900 Hellerup
>      Denmark
>
>
>      Legend:
>
>      The following symbols in the left margin of these minutes have the
>      indicated meaning:
>
>      A     General approval
>      SV    Straw vote
>      MSP   Moved, seconded, passed (formal vote)
>      MSN   Moved, seconded, not passed (formal vote)
>      ***   Action item
>
>      The activities reported here are grouped by subject and do not
>      necessarily follow the exact chronological order of presentation
>      during the meeting.
>
>      Formal votes are reported as:
>
>          In-favor/Opposed/Abstaining/Not Voting/Total-eligible
[trim]
>      1  Opening Activities
>
>      1.1  Opening Comments
>
>      Plauger convened the co-located WG14/X3J11 meeting at 9 AM, 12 June
>      1995, and immediately turned the meeting over to Jaeschke, chair of
>      X3J11.
>
>      Jaeschke stated that the goals of the meeting were to process defect
>      reports, old business, and new work for C9x.
[trim]                                     1
>       N434/95-035
>      June 1995 Minutes
>
>
>      1.2  Introduction of Participants
>
>      Attendees introduced themselves.  Attending the meeting were:  John
>      Benito, Peter Cordsen, Jutta Degener, Frank Farance, Rex Jaeschke,
>      David Keaton, Ed Keizer, John Kwan, Tom MacDonald, Neil Martin,
>      Randy Meyers, Dave Mooney, P. J. Plauger, Tom Plum, Jim Thomas, Keld
>      Simonsen, Ted Van Sickle, Douglas Walls.
>
@@@@@@@
Attending the meeting were the following 18 people:

 John Benito
 Peter Cordsen
 Jutta Degener
 Frank Farance
 Rex Jaeschke (reported in Dr. Dobb's Journal)
 David Keaton
 Ed Keizer
 John Kwan
 Tom MacDonald
 Neil Martin,
 Randy Meyers
 Dave Mooney
 P. J. Plauger
 Tom Plum
 Jim Thomas
 Keld Simonsen
 Ted Van Sickle
 Douglas Walls.
>
>      A copy of the attendance sheet of X3J11 members is attached to these
>      minutes.
>
>      WG14 members in attendance were:  P. J. Plauger (WG14 convenor),
>      John Benito (US), Peter Cordsen (DS), Jutta Degener (TU Berlin), Ed
>      Keizer (NNI), Neil Martin (BSI), Keld Simonsen (DS).
>
>      1.3  Selection of Meeting Chair
>
>  A   Jaeschke was selected as the meeting chair.
>
>      1.4  Host Facilities/local information
>
>      Simonsen (Dansk Standard) was the meeting host.  He requested
>      feedback on the local hotels used by meeting attendees.
>
>      1.5  Procedures for this Meeting
>
>      Meyers volunteered as secretary.
>
>      After the attendance list was circulated, MacDonald announced 12
>      eligible voting members of X3J11 were present, and that constituted
>      a quorum.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Only 12 of the 18 above are evidently eligible to vote...
 ...it is not clear who they are...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>      WG14 had representatives from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the
>      United Kingdom, and the United States.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

It might be easier if the lists were verticle and included the
country each person represents, as well as the company they represent.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>      1.6  Approval of Previous Minutes (WG14/N396)
>
>      The minutes from the Plano meetings were accepted with the following
>      corrections:
>
>          Page 3, Section 2, Add Benito (US delegation) to ISO membership.
>
>          Page 13, Section 5.3, Meyers discussed single inheritance in
>          Simula, not Smalltalk.
>
>          Page 61, Section 9.1, The location of the June 24-28, 1996
>          meeting is Amsterdam, the Netherlands and the host is the
>          University of Amsterdam.
>
>
>
>
>
>                                     2
>                                                                N434/95-035
>                                                         June 1995 Minutes
>
>
>      1.7  Review of Action Items and Resolutions
>
>      The following action items from the previous minutes were determined
>      to be pending:
>
>  *** Gwyn will draft a proposal for deprecating implicit int.
>
>  *** Gwyn will draft a proposal for adding // comments.  (Keaton is
>      taking this item over.)
>
>  *** Benito will investigate new minimum translation limits for a 500k
>      conceptual machine.
>
>  *** Keaton will draft a proposal for adding a repetition count to the
>      designated initializers proposal.
>
>      Plauger requested that the minutes state that Doug Gwyn had done an
>      outstanding job in fulfilling his action item from the previous
>      minutes to review RR2/TC2.
>
>      1.8  Approval of Agenda (WG14/N400)
>
>      After minor adjustment, the agenda was approved.  The revised agenda
>      is attached to these minutes.
>
>      1.9  Distribution of New Documents
>
>      New documents were assigned WG14/X3J11 numbers and will appear in
>      the next mailing.
>
>      Meyers distributed an updated draft of LIA-2 (Language Independent
>      Arithmetic) for informational purposes.
>
>      1.10  Information on Next Meeting
>
>      Meyers announced that Digital Equipment Corporation will host the
>      next meeting on 16-20 October 1995 in Nashua, New Hampshire.
>
>  *** Meyers will get hotel information into the post-Copenhagen mailing.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This info has been posted here..in a very timely manner...great job...!!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>      2  Reports on Liaison Activities
>
>      2.1  X3J11
>
>      Jaeschke reported that the US has applied to track the revision of
>      ISO C.
>
>      Jaeschke stated that his X3J11 annual report to OMC was well
>      received, and garnered a few complements on the charter and rules we
>      have put in place.
>
>      Farance's nomination as project editor is in process.
>
>                                     3
>       N434/95-035
>      June 1995 Minutes
>
>
>      MacDonald is officially approved as vice chair.
>
>      2.2  WG14
>
>      TC1 was reformatted by Plauger to correct problems introduced by the
>      ISO editors.  It was distributed to the committee as document
>      N425/95-024.
>
>      Simonsen reported that ANSI had become the JTC1/SC22 Secretariat.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
NOTE C++ INFO at the C Meeting
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>      2.3  WG21/X3J16 (C++)
>
>      Plum reported that C++ was undergoing CD balloting for approval as a
>      DIS.  The voting ends on 28 August 1995.
>
>      Concurrent with the ISO voting, several countries are having public
>      review periods, but because of the voting schedule, the public
>      review periods are fairly short.  WG21/X3J16 meets 10-14 July 1995
>      and will go over as many public comments as were received.
>      Realistically, comments must be received by WG21/X3J16 by 6 July
>      1995 to be considered at the meeting.
>
>      Sending mail to c++std-notify@research.att.com will automatically
>      add your e-mail address to a reflector that broadcasts information
>      about the C++ public comment period.
>
>  *** Meyers will post to the sc22wg14@dkuug.dk reflector and place in the
>      minutes a list of FTP sites for the C++ Working Paper.
>
>      The following URLs can be used to access the C++ Working Paper:
>
>              ftp://research.att.com/dist/c++std/WP
>              ftp://research.att.com/dist/stdc++/WP
>              http://www.cygnus.com/mrs/wp-draft/
>              http://maths.warwick.ac.uk/c++/
>              ftp://maths.warwick.ac.uk/pub/c++/std/wp/
>              ftp://ftp.su.edu.au/pub/C++/CommitteeDraft/
>              ftp://ftp.mch.sni.de/pub/documents/c++/
>              http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cw/C++.wp-draft/index.html
>              http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/People/klamer/wp/index.html
>
>      Plauger reported that most of the previous review comments from
>      WG14/X3J11 were acted upon by WG21/X3J16.  Plauger called for
>      volunteers to review the C++ Working Paper and send him their
>      comments by the end of June.  He would combine the comments and
>      forward them to WG21/X3J16.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

It looks like some of the same people that steer C are steering C++.
This will probably help to bring the C++ standard to more rapid conclusion.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>      Jaeschke (and others) expressed concern that the C++ Working Paper
>      lacks constraint sections.  Plum stated that he did not think that
>      WG21/X3J16 would be willing to add constraint sections.
>
>      Plum reported that WG21/X3J16 voted to remove implicit int, although
>
>                                     4
[snip]

>      7  C++ Public Review
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>      Plauger called participation in the public review for C++ and
>      explained that time was very short.  The deadline for getting
>      comments to Plauger to be included in the WG14/X3J11 review of the
>      C++ Working Paper is 30 June 1995.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>      Plum pointed out that the C++ Working Paper defines some terms
>      differently than the C Standard.  For example, "conformance" is
[trim]
>
>      different.  He asked for volunteers to look into that particular
>      issue.
>
>  *** The following people tentatively volunteered to review parts of the
>      C++ Working Paper:  Plauger (library), Farance (templates,
>      exceptions), Thomas (floating point), Benito (overloading,
>      exceptions).
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The C++ and C overlap...???

 Plauger (library)
 Farance (templates,exceptions)
 Thomas (floating point)
 Benito (overloading exceptions)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>      8  Revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990
>
>      8.1  Milestones/Discussion on how to achieving closure
>
>      Farance, as project editor, expressed misgivings over the new JTC1
>      electronic document format and how they might effect the final
>      delivery of the new Standard.
>
>      Farance asked what formats did the committee need the standard in?
>      The committee requested postscript, HTML, and ASCII text (good for
>      searching).  All will be derived from a single SGML source.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Note, the recent C++ standard was initially only distributed in Postscript
and it took about a month for people to get it converted to various forms
that are more useful. It looks like the C standard is going to be in
SGML as noted above.

All standards bodies should make it easy for people to read and search
the documents. It is not clear why the original C++ document was in a
form that made it hard to read. Because the public comment period was
very short, it was not beneficial to waste people's time trying to convert
the document. ANSI seems to have outdated approaches that favor leaving
control in the hands of a few...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>      Simonsen stated that SC22 required that we have a backup editor (in
>      case of disaster).  Keaton will serve as the backup editor, and will
>      keep copies of the draft and tools needed to process it.
>
>      Plauger stated that we needed a restricted FTP site.  We do not want
>      (possibly altered) versions of the draft floating around the net.
>
>  *** Keaton and Keizer will set up a restricted FTP site.
>
>      Someone asked who owns the copyright on the standard.  Plauger
>      stated that SC21 has claims that they own the copyright on any DIS
>      (Draft International Standard) and IS (International Standard), and
>      that the working group owns the copyright on all other documents.
>      SC21 goes on to say that although the working group owns the other
>      documents, they are not necessarily free to give them to the public.
>
>      Other committee members observed that copyright ownership of
>      standards has always been a murky issue, and just because an
>      organization claims the copyright, that doesn't necessarily mean
>      they are correct to do so.
>
>      Plauger reported the long standing rule that committee members can
>      distribute documents "for the purposes of standardization," and can
>      even charge a reasonable duplication fee.
>
>      Plum stated a public web site would be good for dialog with the C
>      community.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Great news...a public web site...what about Usenet also...???
 how about:
  comp.std.c
  comp.std.c++

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>      Various people stated opinions:
>
>      1.  The defect reports are too low level for the public.
>
>
>                                     10
>                                                                N434/95-035
>                                                         June 1995 Minutes
>
>
>      2.  The list C9x features under consideration would useful.
>
>      3.  We should make available the submission form for new features.
>
>      4.  We should get something going, and then refine our presence.
>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>  *** Simonsen will set up a public World Wide Web Page.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Great News...PROGRESS...!!!!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>  *** Keaton, Farance, Jaeschke, Simonsen, Cordsen, and Keizer will make
>      recommendations for our public online presence.
>
>      Keaton's site will be the WG14 FTP site.  It will remain public
>      until next meeting.
>
>      The head of delegation for each country is responsible for forming a
>      list of people who should have access to the restricted FTP site.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>  *** Cordsen, Farance, Benito, Keaton, Simonsen will develop an official
>      WG14 position on the electronic document format to be communicated
>      by Plauger at the plenary.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Jim Fleming
U.S. Citizen
Naperville, IL