In article <3uh4ue$s57@tools.near.net>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> wrote:
>In article <3ufhq5$284@News1.mcs.net> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>In article <3ue4kf$4ru@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>>The C++ standardization process follows ISO rules, which differ in detail
>>>from ANSI rules. ANSI instituted procedures a few years ago for allowing
>>>joint committees, and the C++ standard is the first major language standard
>>>to be produced under those procedures.
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>What do you think of the new structure?
>> Does it accelerate the process?
>
>It almost certainly slows the process, compared to an ordinary ANSI
>standard.

 You can look at it the other way. Having a committee meeting
in which the X3J16 people send 50 delegates all of whom argue on the
spot about the USA National position slows down the normal ISO process.
WG21 usually reaches consensus much more quickly than X3J16 -- its
easier for 5-8 Heads of Delegation to find common ground than 80
individuals.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) writes:

>Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> wrote:
>> It almost certainly slows the process, compared to an ordinary ANSI
>> standard.  Any major approval process requires two public reviews.  When
>> ISO submits a document for review, ANSI then has to do its own review to
>> determine how the US should respond in the ISO review.
>
>Do most of the ISO members have their own review to determine how they
>should respond, or is this an ANSI quirk?

All of the ISO members have some process to determine how they should
respond.  Some of them have public reviews, some don't.  ANSI is by
no means unique in having public reviews, but they are certainly not
universal either.

--
Fergus Henderson              | Designing grand concepts is fun;
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au               | finding nitty little bugs is just work.
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh   | -- Brooks, in "The Mythical Man-Month".
PGP key fingerprint: 00 D7 A2 27 65 09 B6 AC  8B 3E 0F 01 E7 5D C4 3F

In article <3uh4ue$s57@tools.near.net>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> wrote:
> It almost certainly slows the process, compared to an ordinary ANSI
> standard.  Any major approval process requires two public reviews.  When
> ISO submits a document for review, ANSI then has to do its own review to
> determine how the US should respond in the ISO review.

Do most of the ISO members have their own review to determine how they
should respond, or is this an ANSI quirk?
--
Shields.

In article <3uh4ue$s57@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3ufhq5$284@News1.mcs.net> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>In article <3ue4kf$4ru@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>>The C++ standardization process follows ISO rules, which differ in detail
>>>from ANSI rules. ANSI instituted procedures a few years ago for allowing
>>>joint committees, and the C++ standard is the first major language
standard
>>>to be produced under those procedures.
>>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>What do you think of the new structure?
>>       Does it accelerate the process?
>
>It almost certainly slows the process, compared to an ordinary ANSI
>standard.  Any major approval process requires two public reviews.  When
>ISO submits a document for review, ANSI then has to do its own review to
>determine how the US should respond in the ISO review.
>
@@@@@@@@@

If it slows the process, then why would people suggest this approach?

@@@@@@@@@

>Also, approving an ISO standard requires international concensus.  Clearly,
>getting concensus from a larger community is going to be more difficult
>than getting concensus from a smaller community.
>
@@@@@@@@

Unless the international and national committees are actually just a few
people that play both rolls...

@@@@@@@@
>It's almost certainly faster to develop a national standard, and then "fast
>track" it into an international standard.
>
>>       Does it prevent "rail-roading"?
>>       Does it give everyone an equal voice?
>
>It could make railroading easier.  In ANSI, every organization has a vote,
>but in ISO there's just one vote per country.  If the ANSI committee gives
>their international representative too much discretion he can bias his
>actions in favor of his employer.  It's often necessary to give an IR quite
>a bit of discretion, since it's not possible for him to poll his
>constituency before taking actions.
>
@@@@@@@

So fast tracking or railroading...we get our choice...:+)

@@@@@@@

>>Most importantly...
>>       Does it lead to the *best* standard?
>
>Since the standard will be reviewed more widely, possibly.  But there's
>also often more politics in ISO committees (people are representing their
>"national interests", so there's much more at stake).
>
@@@@@@

This seems likely in the case of the C++ standard because such a large
part of it is the proposed standard class library. If I were a country,
I might want to make sure that this class library was designed by experts,
was well tested, and was widely available from commercial vendors. By
endorsing something as a standard in a country implies that the citizens
are bound to invest some of their financial resources to the standard and
it is important to make sure that a country invests its resources wisely.

For example, a country may not want to adopt "teletypes" as their
standard PCs at this point in time, because their citizens may fall behind
in terms of the world market if they spend their time loading paper tape
into the reader. C++ and the class library is the "teletype" of programming
languages.

@@@@@@

>>>The publicly circulated draft dated April 28, 1995 is the current version
>>>of the draft standard. It was registered with ISO as a Commitee Draft
(CD),
>>>and is the version on which public comments are solicited by ANSI.
>>@@@@
>>
>>Since this does not say "solicited by ANSI and ISO", should we infer that
>>there will be an ISO draft...???...or does ANSI mean ISO/ANSI...???
>>
>>Or, should we read this as, an ANSI committee (working jointly with
>>the ISO) registered a draft with the ISO, which the ISO (working jointly
>>with ANSI) will use for public comments.
>
>I believe: It's an ISO Committee Draft, developed by the joint committee.
>ANSI X3J16, as the US representative to the ISO committee, has to determine
>how it will vote on this CD.  ANSI requires its technical committees to
>solicit public comments on such matters.
>
>>It sounds like very few changes were made. If this was the case, and
>>since C++ has been under development for over 15 years with the last 5
>>years as a proposed ANSI standard, then why would it take another year
>>(see below) to finish up the work...???
>
>Nothing goes quickly in ANSI.
>
@@@@@@@@

Maybe ANSI needs to start using more modern technology, like the Internet.

Of course...when you are developing a standard for the "teletype" of
programming languages...I guess something like the Internet appears to
be beyond reach...one of the members of the C++ movement recently stated
that he was just trying to get on board with the Internet tools...I guess
we can not expect that C++ which was born in the late 70's would be able
to keep pace with the speed of the Internet...

If you want to see speed...check out Sun's Java...http://java.sun.com...
there is an article which describes some of the events of the past few
years...when Java hit the net in early 1995 few people noticed, now
many people are starting to work with the technology and are joining the
movement...

@@@@@@@@

>A public review lasts 4 months.  It then is likely to take a few months to
>go through all the review comments and formulate responses, make the
>necessary corrections, etc.  If you make any technical changes to the draft
>you have to go through the process (although subsequent review periods can
>be as short as 2 months, rather than the initial 4 months).
>
>>Should the companies with a vested interest in finishing the standard
>>assign a few more people to get the job done...???
>
>Read "The Mythical Man-Month".
>
@@@@@

AH...maybe the 200+ person C++ committee needs to be reduced to 1 or 2
people with a web site...

@@@@@

>>OK...continuing...an ANSI committee registered a Committee Draft (CD)
>>with the ISO which ISO members are commenting on and voting on by the
>>end of September. Being part of the ISO, the U.S. has to submit comments
>>and a vote, which it is formulating via the ANSI public comment process
>>that recently ended....
>>
>>       Who will formulate the ANSI reply...???
>
>One of the duties of an ANSI technical committee is to act as the US
>representative to the corresponding ISO committee.  So ANSI X3J16 will
>formulate the ANSI reply.
>
>>               Does Bill Clinton or Al Gore have to approve it...???
>
>ANSI is not a government institution, it's a voluntary industry
>organization.  I think the National Institute of Standards and Technology
>is a member of ANSI, and it has representatives on many technical
>committees (they had a representative on X3J13 (Common Lisp) in the early
>days).  When NIST is a member of a committee it has one vote, just like any
>other organization (although vendors who care about their government
>customers are likely to be influenced by what the NIST rep says).
>
@@@@@@@@@@

Doesn't ANSI receive U.S. government funding...???
 Are U.S. tax payers paying for ANSI....???

@@@@@@@@@@
>>>it is up to the ISO administration whether to accept that status. They
>>could
>>>rule, for example, that the changes were too extensive and that another
CD
>>>vote is required. In addition, the C++ Committee could decide to go
submit
>>>a second CD on the assumption that ISO would reject DIS status anyway.
>>>
>>@@@
>>
>>Now it appears that we have a new body..."ISO administration"...
>>       If all of the language experts in the world are either part of
>>       the ANSI process or the ISO process, then who makes up the
>>       ISO administration...???
>
>ANSI and ISO each have several levels of committees.  There are technical
>committees, like X3J16 and SC22/WG21, that do the technical work.  Then
>there are parent committees, like X3 and SC22, that check that the
>technical committees followed all the procedures properly.  In ISO there
>are a few more levels, but I don't remember their names.
>
>>       Do they know anything about computer languages, or are they
>>       just "diffing" documents to make sure things were not "changed"
>>       to much...
>
>The closer to the technical committee level, the more they're likely to
>know about the area of standardization.  At higher levels, you have the
>same people reviewing the C++ standard as would also review standards for
>aircraft engines and office furniture, so they aren't expected to deal with
>the technical minutia.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This sounds like the U.S. Patent office...:+)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>       BTW...
>>               Where is the ANSI source stored...???
>>               Where is the ISO source stored...???
>>               Who edits these files...???
>>               What edits are "official"...???
>>
>>       Is there a security system...???...for example, do three members
>>       of the ANSI/ISO committee have to each hold down CTL, ALT and
>>       DEL while another unbiased person types...:)
>
>It generally works on the honor system.
>--
>Barry Margolin
>BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>barmar@bbnplanet.com
>Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-5124
@@@@@@@@@@@

Now that AT&T is investing heavily (see http://www.att.com) in your company,
you should be able to keep us informed of the latest and greatest...

@@@@@@@@@@@
--
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_|

Warning: This article contains mostly administrative details, and should
not be read while operating heavy machinery, as it is likely to induce sleep.

The C++ standardization process follows ISO rules, which differ in detail
from ANSI rules. ANSI instituted procedures a few years ago for allowing
joint committees, and the C++ standard is the first major language standard
to be produced under those procedures.

The "C++ Committee" is two committees which meet jointly: The ANSI X3J16
committee, and the ISO SC22/WG21 committee. Technical matters are dealt
with jointly, but some administrative matters must be handled in separate
meetings.

The publicly circulated draft dated April 28, 1995 is the current version
of the draft standard. It was registered with ISO as a Commitee Draft (CD),
and is the version on which public comments are solicited by ANSI. It is
certain, because it is a draft, that changes will be made before the final
standard is released. In fact, some corrections to the draft were approved
at the C++ Committee meeting last week. By "correction", I mean a fix to a
recognized internal inconsistency which should not be allowed to stand.
A few somewhat minor changes other than corrections were also approved. More
corrections are known to be needed, and other minor changes might also be applied.

ISO member national bodies have until the end of September to vote on the CD.
ANSI is one such national body, and the public comments received serve to
influence the way the US will vote. The US vote is determined by those voting
members of X3J16 who represent US-domiciled organizations. ISO national bodies
may attach comments to their votes, and the comments must be addressed by the
C++ Committee. The ANSI public comments will influence the submitted US comments.

If the ISO votes to accept the CD, the draft after suitable corrections may
be advanced to the status of Draft International Standard. That is, the C++
Committee may vote to submit the revised draft to ISO as a proposed DIS, but
it is up to the ISO administration whether to accept that status. They could
rule, for example, that the changes were too extensive and that another CD
vote is required. In addition, the C++ Committee could decide to go submit
a second CD on the assumption that ISO would reject DIS status anyway.

Once the revised CD has been accepted by the ISO administration as a proposed
DIS, the member national bodies again vote on whether to accept it. If accepted,
that DIS becomes the International Standard. No significant alterations to the
DIS are permitted, just corrections to typographical errors and the like. If
the vote rejects the DIS, another round of CD is required. (The restriction
on changes to the DIS is a recent ISO rule change, and necessitated a change
to the C++ Committee schedule.)

The C++ Committee feels that two more meetings will be required before the
draft standard is in good enough shape to submit as a DIS. That decision
will probably be made at the meeting in March 1996.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
acting chair, X3J16

In article <3ue4kf$4ru@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>
>Warning: This article contains mostly administrative details, and should
>not be read while operating heavy machinery, as it is likely to induce
sleep.
>
>The C++ standardization process follows ISO rules, which differ in detail
>from ANSI rules. ANSI instituted procedures a few years ago for allowing
>joint committees, and the C++ standard is the first major language standard
>to be produced under those procedures.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

What do you think of the new structure?
 Does it accelerate the process?
 Does it prevent "rail-roading"?
 Does it give everyone an equal voice?
Most importantly...
 Does it lead to the *best* standard?

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

>The "C++ Committee" is two committees which meet jointly: The ANSI X3J16
>committee, and the ISO SC22/WG21 committee. Technical matters are dealt
>with jointly, but some administrative matters must be handled in separate
>meetings.
>
@@@@@@@@@@

All references below to "C++ Committee" really mean C++ Committee(s)...??

@@@@@@@@@@

>The publicly circulated draft dated April 28, 1995 is the current version
>of the draft standard. It was registered with ISO as a Commitee Draft (CD),
>and is the version on which public comments are solicited by ANSI.
@@@@

Since this does not say "solicited by ANSI and ISO", should we infer that
there will be an ISO draft...???...or does ANSI mean ISO/ANSI...???

Or, should we read this as, an ANSI committee (working jointly with
the ISO) registered a draft with the ISO, which the ISO (working jointly
with ANSI) will use for public comments.

@@@@

>It is
>certain, because it is a draft, that changes will be made before the final
>standard is released. In fact, some corrections to the draft were approved
>at the C++ Committee meeting last week.

@@@@

How did the meeting go "last week"...???

Will there be meeting notes published here...or anywhere...???
 Who represented ANSI at the meeting?
 Who represented ISO at the meeting?

How many public comments were submitted or reviewed...???

@@@@

>By "correction", I mean a fix to a
>recognized internal inconsistency which should not be allowed to stand.
>A few somewhat minor changes other than corrections were also approved.
More
>corrections are known to be needed, and other minor changes might also be
applied.
>
@@@@@@@@

It sounds like very few changes were made. If this was the case, and
since C++ has been under development for over 15 years with the last 5
years as a proposed ANSI standard, then why would it take another year
(see below) to finish up the work...???

Should the companies with a vested interest in finishing the standard
assign a few more people to get the job done...???

@@@@@@@@

>ISO member national bodies have until the end of September to vote on the
CD.
@@@@

OK...continuing...an ANSI committee registered a Committee Draft (CD)
with the ISO which ISO members are commenting on and voting on by the
end of September. Being part of the ISO, the U.S. has to submit comments
and a vote, which it is formulating via the ANSI public comment process
that recently ended....

 Who will formulate the ANSI reply...???
  Does Bill Clinton or Al Gore have to approve it...???
 If the ANSI committee had to vote today...what would they vote...???
 Who is in charge of the ANSI committee...???
 Do they publish reports, on their views and findings...???

@@@@

>ANSI is one such national body, and the public comments received serve to
>influence the way the US will vote. The US vote is determined by those
voting
>members of X3J16 who represent US-domiciled organizations.

@@@@

Can you publish a list of the members and the US-domiciled organizations..??

@@@@

> ISO national bodies
>may attach comments to their votes, and the comments must be addressed by
the
>C++ Committee. The ANSI public comments will influence the submitted US
comments.
>
@@@@@@@@@

Since the ANSI committee is part of the "C++ Committee" (or Committee(s))...
does this means that the ANSI comments are being submitted to itself...???

 How much overlap is there between the committee(s)...???
 How much overlap is there with the ANSI C committee...???

This sounds like...
 Sisters and brothers have I none...
  but that man's father is my father's son...

@@@@@@@@@

>If the ISO votes to accept the CD, the draft after suitable corrections may
>be advanced to the status of Draft International Standard. That is, the C++
>Committee may vote to submit the revised draft to ISO as a proposed DIS,
but
@@@

OK...the joint "Comittee(s)" will submit the DIS...

 Any guess on when this will be...???
 When is the next joint ISO/ANSI meeting...???

@@@

>it is up to the ISO administration whether to accept that status. They
could
>rule, for example, that the changes were too extensive and that another CD
>vote is required. In addition, the C++ Committee could decide to go submit
>a second CD on the assumption that ISO would reject DIS status anyway.
>
@@@

Now it appears that we have a new body..."ISO administration"...
 If all of the language experts in the world are either part of
 the ANSI process or the ISO process, then who makes up the
 ISO administration...???
 Do they know anything about computer languages, or are they
 just "diffing" documents to make sure things were not "changed"
 to much...

 BTW...
  Where is the ANSI source stored...???
  Where is the ISO source stored...???
  Who edits these files...???
  What edits are "official"...???

 Is there a security system...???...for example, do three members
 of the ANSI/ISO committee have to each hold down CTL, ALT and
 DEL while another unbiased person types...:)
@@@

>Once the revised CD has been accepted by the ISO administration as a
proposed
>DIS, the member national bodies again vote on whether to accept it. If
accepted,
>that DIS becomes the International Standard.
@@@

When do you estimate that this will occur...???

 Keep in mind, companies (like Sun) are moving forward with
 significant efforts like Java (see http://java.sun.com).
 The longer this C++ standards work drags on, the more companies
 will discover that C++ does not deliver what they need. By
 the time the standard is complete, it may be a moot point.

 Is there still time to merge Java and C++...???

 Can the Java class library be added to C++...???

@@@

>No significant alterations to the
>DIS are permitted, just corrections to typographical errors and the like.
If
>the vote rejects the DIS, another round of CD is required. (The restriction
>on changes to the DIS is a recent ISO rule change, and necessitated a
change
>to the C++ Committee schedule.)
@@@@@@@

Which way did the schedule change...??? (increase or decrease)

Who makes the decisions on changes in the ISO rules...???

@@@@@@@
>
>The C++ Committee feels that two more meetings will be required before the
>draft standard is in good enough shape to submit as a DIS. That decision
>will probably be made at the meeting in March 1996.
>
>---
>Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
>acting chair, X3J16
>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thanks for the update...and thanks for all of the info that you
provide in the open Usenet forum...

BTW...
 What does "acting chair" mean...???
 Is there going to be a vote on a new chairperson...???

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
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 <3ufhq5$284@News1.mcs.net> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <3ue4kf$4ru@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>The C++ standardization process follows ISO rules, which differ in detail
>>from ANSI rules. ANSI instituted procedures a few years ago for allowing
>>joint committees, and the C++ standard is the first major language standard
>>to be produced under those procedures.
>>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>What do you think of the new structure?
> Does it accelerate the process?

It almost certainly slows the process, compared to an ordinary ANSI
standard.  Any major approval process requires two public reviews.  When
ISO submits a document for review, ANSI then has to do its own review to
determine how the US should respond in the ISO review.

Also, approving an ISO standard requires international concensus.  Clearly,
getting concensus from a larger community is going to be more difficult
than getting concensus from a smaller community.

It's almost certainly faster to develop a national standard, and then "fast
track" it into an international standard.

> Does it prevent "rail-roading"?
> Does it give everyone an equal voice?

It could make railroading easier.  In ANSI, every organization has a vote,
but in ISO there's just one vote per country.  If the ANSI committee gives
their international representative too much discretion he can bias his
actions in favor of his employer.  It's often necessary to give an IR quite
a bit of discretion, since it's not possible for him to poll his
constituency before taking actions.

>Most importantly...
> Does it lead to the *best* standard?

Since the standard will be reviewed more widely, possibly.  But there's
also often more politics in ISO committees (people are representing their
"national interests", so there's much more at stake).

>>The publicly circulated draft dated April 28, 1995 is the current version
>>of the draft standard. It was registered with ISO as a Commitee Draft (CD),
>>and is the version on which public comments are solicited by ANSI.
>@@@@
>
>Since this does not say "solicited by ANSI and ISO", should we infer that
>there will be an ISO draft...???...or does ANSI mean ISO/ANSI...???
>
>Or, should we read this as, an ANSI committee (working jointly with
>the ISO) registered a draft with the ISO, which the ISO (working jointly
>with ANSI) will use for public comments.

I believe: It's an ISO Committee Draft, developed by the joint committee.
ANSI X3J16, as the US representative to the ISO committee, has to determine
how it will vote on this CD.  ANSI requires its technical committees to
solicit public comments on such matters.

>It sounds like very few changes were made. If this was the case, and
>since C++ has been under development for over 15 years with the last 5
>years as a proposed ANSI standard, then why would it take another year
>(see below) to finish up the work...???

Nothing goes quickly in ANSI.

A public review lasts 4 months.  It then is likely to take a few months to
go through all the review comments and formulate responses, make the
necessary corrections, etc.  If you make any technical changes to the draft
you have to go through the process (although subsequent review periods can
be as short as 2 months, rather than the initial 4 months).

>Should the companies with a vested interest in finishing the standard
>assign a few more people to get the job done...???

Read "The Mythical Man-Month".

>OK...continuing...an ANSI committee registered a Committee Draft (CD)
>with the ISO which ISO members are commenting on and voting on by the
>end of September. Being part of the ISO, the U.S. has to submit comments
>and a vote, which it is formulating via the ANSI public comment process
>that recently ended....
>
> Who will formulate the ANSI reply...???

One of the duties of an ANSI technical committee is to act as the US
representative to the corresponding ISO committee.  So ANSI X3J16 will
formulate the ANSI reply.

>  Does Bill Clinton or Al Gore have to approve it...???

ANSI is not a government institution, it's a voluntary industry
organization.  I think the National Institute of Standards and Technology
is a member of ANSI, and it has representatives on many technical
committees (they had a representative on X3J13 (Common Lisp) in the early
days).  When NIST is a member of a committee it has one vote, just like any
other organization (although vendors who care about their government
customers are likely to be influenced by what the NIST rep says).

>>it is up to the ISO administration whether to accept that status. They
>could
>>rule, for example, that the changes were too extensive and that another CD
>>vote is required. In addition, the C++ Committee could decide to go submit
>>a second CD on the assumption that ISO would reject DIS status anyway.
>>
>@@@
>
>Now it appears that we have a new body..."ISO administration"...
> If all of the language experts in the world are either part of
> the ANSI process or the ISO process, then who makes up the
> ISO administration...???

ANSI and ISO each have several levels of committees.  There are technical
committees, like X3J16 and SC22/WG21, that do the technical work.  Then
there are parent committees, like X3 and SC22, that check that the
technical committees followed all the procedures properly.  In ISO there
are a few more levels, but I don't remember their names.

> Do they know anything about computer languages, or are they
> just "diffing" documents to make sure things were not "changed"
> to much...

The closer to the technical committee level, the more they're likely to
know about the area of standardization.  At higher levels, you have the
same people reviewing the C++ standard as would also review standards for
aircraft engines and office furniture, so they aren't expected to deal with
the technical minutia.

>
> BTW...
>  Where is the ANSI source stored...???
>  Where is the ISO source stored...???
>  Who edits these files...???
>  What edits are "official"...???
>
> Is there a security system...???...for example, do three members
> of the ANSI/ISO committee have to each hold down CTL, ALT and
> DEL while another unbiased person types...:)

It generally works on the honor system.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com
Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-5124