From: maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller)
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 01:47:44 GMT

In article <3n6agrEh12@uni-erlangen.de>,
Markus Kuhn <mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
>> Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
>>newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
>>and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
>>as well)
>[...]
>> The job of the moderator will be to condense
>>multiple comments into a single proposal and post it
>>with a request that people supporting it send in their
>>"signatures". That might even be done on the initiative
>>of the moderator reading comp.std.c++.
>
>This sounds like a very sensible idea. Do you volunteer for this
>moderator job?

 No. It would compromise my ability to contribute to this
forum in my usual biased way, it would not be appropriate because
I'm a Technical Expert from Australia on WG21, and I simply
don't have the time or the ability to interface as smoothly with
Internet as is required.

 I'd be happy to ensure contributions collated
by the moderator are passed on to WG21, but there is a danger
that I cannot pass things on to X3J16/ANSI -- the body conducting
the big public review -- because I'm not a member of it.

 However I can pass on any such collated opinions to
the Australian/New Zealand C++ Panel who may consider incorporating
such comments in National Body positions. We need all the
help we can get. There's a LOT of pages to review.

--
        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
--
| Fidonet:  maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au 1:133/411.412
| Internet: maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au
| Gateway:  Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta

In article <3n6agrEh12@uni-erlangen.de>,
Markus Kuhn <mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
>> Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
>>newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
>>and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
>>as well)
>[...]
>> The job of the moderator will be to condense
>>multiple comments into a single proposal and post it
>>with a request that people supporting it send in their
>>"signatures". That might even be done on the initiative
>>of the moderator reading comp.std.c++.
>
>This sounds like a very sensible idea. Do you volunteer for this
>moderator job?

 No. It would compromise my ability to contribute to this
forum in my usual biased way, it would not be appropriate because
I'm a Technical Expert from Australia on WG21, and I simply
don't have the time or the ability to interface as smoothly with
Internet as is required.

 I'd be happy to ensure contributions collated
by the moderator are passed on to WG21, but there is a danger
that I cannot pass things on to X3J16/ANSI -- the body conducting
the big public review -- because I'm not a member of it.

 However I can pass on any such collated opinions to
the Australian/New Zealand C++ Panel who may consider incorporating
such comments in National Body positions. We need all the
help we can get. There's a LOT of pages to review.

--
        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

In article <3n41gr$lk@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, Ed Osinski <osinski@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>|>  Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
>|> newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
>|> and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
>|> as well)
>
>How much time does the public have to comment?  Two months?  Six months?
>A year?

 Member bodies of SC22 have until August 28 1995 to submit
votes with comments. USA has a major headache because the ANSI
requirements for a public review will require all the input
to be considered before the USA formulates its National Body
position. I do not know what date ANSI has set as the deadline
for receipt of public comments but I cannot imagine the public
will have much more than two months from today.

>It would take quite a bit of *time* to setup a non-alt newsgroup.

 Yes. Note that there is a non-zero probability the CD
Ballot will fail and a second CD be produced and a second round
of voting required. So the use of such a newsgroup would not
be limited to just a short period -- it could extend into
the post-IS phase of Defect Reports etc.

>In fact, with a mailing list, it would be easy to have different people
>dealing with different proposals.

 The problem with mailing lists is that they are not
accessible in the same way as News.

>Again, the person passing on the comments need not the same person (or
>persons) who put together the proposal.  In other words, people *not*
>belonging to the ANSI/ISO committees could do some of the work.

 I hope so, because member of the committee will have
their work cut out already and would have trouble doing a good job.

>|>  I know this is vague, but here are two conflicting
>|> goals I think we need to work on resolving:
>|>
>|>  1) The committee _wants_ informed public comment,
>|> but not reams and reams and reams of it. And we don't want
>|> _uninformed_ comment, like extension proposals which are
>|> not well enough worded to be voted on.
>
>Isn't this inevitable?

 Yes. But if "we" of  the Internet C++ community want our
voice heard and recognised we have to get _organised_ or we will
be lost in the noise.

>|>  Criticisms of the Working Paper at this stage
>|> need to be of the form of requests for specific changes
>|> to the text of the document -- not generalised requests
>|> for new features. A moderator can both reject comments
>|> not of the correct form, and help synthesise ones that
>|> refect popular opinion.
>
>If (keeping our fingers crossed) the people posting to the list
>are for the most part reasonable, a moderator may not even be
>necessary.  Since it is a mailing list, it is highly unlikely that
>newbies would join and post inappropriate messages.

 Someone has to formulate exact text to be transmitted
to ANSI/X3J16, get general agreement somehow, and then make
sure that text is actually transmitted on time. Otherwise we
might as well just "talk" on comp.std.c++.

 I'm not sure about a mailing list. I'm already on
THREE C++ mailing lists connected with the Standardisation
process.

 A newsgroup is more focussed and open. But I'm only
talking. I already have a direct pipeline to the committee.



--
        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

In article <D7zCFI.J1w@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au says...
>
>In article <3n41gr$lk@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, Ed Osinski <osinski@cs.nyu.edu>
wrote:
>>|>     Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
>>|> newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
>>|> and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
>>|> as well)
>>
>>How much time does the public have to comment?  Two months?  Six months?
>>A year?
>
>        Member bodies of SC22 have until August 28 1995 to submit
>votes with comments. USA has a major headache because the ANSI
>requirements for a public review will require all the input
>to be considered before the USA formulates its National Body
>position. I do not know what date ANSI has set as the deadline
>for receipt of public comments but I cannot imagine the public
>will have much more than two months from today.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This means that it is almost not worth formulating a comment.
It looks like the "standard" will "stand" as written.

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

>>It would take quite a bit of *time* to setup a non-alt newsgroup.
>
>        Yes. Note that there is a non-zero probability the CD
>Ballot will fail and a second CD be produced and a second round
>of voting required. So the use of such a newsgroup would not
>be limited to just a short period -- it could extend into
>the post-IS phase of Defect Reports etc.
>
>>In fact, with a mailing list, it would be easy to have different people
>>dealing with different proposals.
>
>        The problem with mailing lists is that they are not
>accessible in the same way as News.
>

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

It is a shame that "News" was not used more effectively by these
"computer" literate committee members. On second thought, maybe
it was used effectively. It looks like there will be very few
public comments and the standard will sail through unchanged.

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

>>Again, the person passing on the comments need not the same person (or
>>persons) who put together the proposal.  In other words, people *not*
>>belonging to the ANSI/ISO committees could do some of the work.
>
>        I hope so, because member of the committee will have
>their work cut out already and would have trouble doing a good job.
>

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

It has become very clear that the committee members do not seem
to be concerned about "doing a good job". It appears that some
of the committee members have not even read the standard.

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

>>|>     I know this is vague, but here are two conflicting
>>|> goals I think we need to work on resolving:
>>|>
>>|>     1) The committee _wants_ informed public comment,
>>|> but not reams and reams and reams of it. And we don't want
>>|> _uninformed_ comment, like extension proposals which are
>>|> not well enough worded to be voted on.
>>
>>Isn't this inevitable?
>
>        Yes. But if "we" of  the Internet C++ community want our
>voice heard and recognised we have to get _organised_ or we will
>be lost in the noise.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Based on what you are saying, "the Internet C++ community" will
have no voice. Maybe that will be better. We certainly do not
want the C++ people to claim that they did not get their language
"awarded" a standard because of some non-expert public comments.

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

>>|>     Criticisms of the Working Paper at this stage
>>|> need to be of the form of requests for specific changes
>>|> to the text of the document -- not generalised requests
>>|> for new features. A moderator can both reject comments
>>|> not of the correct form, and help synthesise ones that
>>|> refect popular opinion.
>>
>>If (keeping our fingers crossed) the people posting to the list
>>are for the most part reasonable, a moderator may not even be
>>necessary.  Since it is a mailing list, it is highly unlikely that
>>newbies would join and post inappropriate messages.
>
>        Someone has to formulate exact text to be transmitted
>to ANSI/X3J16, get general agreement somehow, and then make
>sure that text is actually transmitted on time. Otherwise we
>might as well just "talk" on comp.std.c++.
>
>        I'm not sure about a mailing list. I'm already on
>THREE C++ mailing lists connected with the Standardisation
>process.
>
>        A newsgroup is more focussed and open. But I'm only
>talking. I already have a direct pipeline to the committee.
>
>--
>        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au

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

As predicted, it appears that there will be little time for comments.
The comments will likely not have any impact. Therefore, it is
probably not worth anyone's time to formulate any public comments.

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

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D7zCFI.J1w@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

>  Member bodies of SC22 have until August 28 1995 to submit
> votes with comments. USA has a major headache because the ANSI
> requirements for a public review will require all the input
> to be considered before the USA formulates its National Body
> position. I do not know what date ANSI has set as the deadline
> for receipt of public comments but I cannot imagine the public
> will have much more than two months from today.

Well, slightly more.  I don't have exact dates yet, but I believe
the official comment period will start during the last week of May
and end during the last week in July.  The whole point of getting an
electronic copy fast is to let people get a head start on the official
interval.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <D7zCFI.J1w@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

>  Yes. Note that there is a non-zero probability the CD
> Ballot will fail and a second CD be produced and a second round
> of voting required. So the use of such a newsgroup would not
> be limited to just a short period -- it could extend into
> the post-IS phase of Defect Reports etc.

There is also a non-zero probability that the CD ballot will
succeed and a second CD will be produced anyway.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <3n0u2o$6ig@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

   In article 95Apr18010358@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu, haydens@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu (Hayden Schultz x3685 ) writes:
   >
   >Is there a reasonably current version of the draft available on the
   >net?

   In late April, a draft standard will be made available on a public FTP
   site. To find out how you can get a copy, and how to submit comments
   for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
    c++std-notify@research.att.com

   You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
   when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
   for submitting comments.

   The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
   list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.

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


Will the notification message also be sent to comp.std.c++?

Bo Bichel Noerbaek

In article <SDLBN.95Apr26110824@ux15.tdr.dk> sdlbn@tdr.dk (Bo Bichel Noerbaek) writes:

> Will the notification message also be sent to comp.std.c++?

Yes.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <SDLBN.95Apr26110824@ux15.tdr.dk>, sdlbn@tdr.dk says...
>
>In article <3n0u2o$6ig@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve
Clamage) writes:
>
>   In article 95Apr18010358@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu,
haydens@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu (Hayden
> Schultz x3685 ) writes:
>   >
>   >Is there a reasonably current version of the draft available on the
>   >net?
>
>   In late April, a draft standard will be made available on a public FTP
>   site. To find out how you can get a copy, and how to submit comments
>   for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
>           c++std-notify@research.att.com
>
>   You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
>   when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
>   for submitting comments.
>
>   The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
>   list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.
>
>   ---
>   Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
>
>
>Will the notification message also be sent to comp.std.c++?
>
>Bo Bichel Noerbaek

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

You obviously must have missed the past couple of months of "discussion"...

Summary:

 1. This newsgroup is not used by the ANSI/ISO committee for any
  official communication. They prefer private e-mail lists
  as well as paper and pencil because some of the members
  do not have access to the Internet.

 2. The DRAFT standard is available to all those people who are
  actively supporting it and preparing commercial products
  which will earn them additional income when the standard
  is complete. They will use that income to feed their
  families and other poor starving souls. Since you obviously
  do not have a copy, you have not been "chosen" to be part
  of that "commercial" activity.

 3. Since you have asked the above question in this newsgroup, you
  are obviously not part of the "Inner Circle" or InnerNet.
  I suggest that you not waste your time trying to figure
  that group out. If you do they will attempt to destroy
  you via a well orchestrated "network" of pawns. They have
  had 15 years of practice, they are very skilled at this
  activity. The people in the Inner Circle will stop at
  "nothing" to achieve their goals. "You Will" use ANSI C++.

 4. One of the only reasons to obtain a copy of the DRAFT standard
  is to make public comments. At this stage of the game,
  public comments will have little effect. If you do take the
  time to draft public comments, you will either be beaten
  down with public ridicule or you will be told that the
  committee has already discussed those ideas and has rejected
  them for reasons that seem to escape the committee. If your
  comments are unique, you will be told that you have to fly
  half way around the world and attend two meetings to have
  any hope of bringing your comments to a vote. Even if you
  foolishly did that, you would lose the vote which is already
  made off-line, via private e-mail. Besides, by the time you
  did that, the rest of the committee would have approved the
  standard.

The bottom line...

 "You Will" use ANSI C++..."You Will" wait until AT&T is ready...


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

> Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
>newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
>and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
>as well)
[...]
> The job of the moderator will be to condense
>multiple comments into a single proposal and post it
>with a request that people supporting it send in their
>"signatures". That might even be done on the initiative
>of the moderator reading comp.std.c++.

This sounds like a very sensible idea. Do you volunteer for this
moderator job?

Markus

---
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -- University of Erlangen,
Internet Mail: <mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> - Germany
WWW Home: <http://wwwcip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/user/mskuhn>

A moderated group for comunication with comittee would
be great. What about coupling it with a _moderated_ mailing list.
Point is : not every people read news on a regular pattern,
most read their e-mails.
OK : I speak for myself, I read news say once or two a month,
(except when participating to threads when I've time enough)
but I read mail on a day to day basis.
Such group would be most interesting and I would regret much
missing anything.

In article <D79JyE.CtK@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
|> In article <3n0u2o$6ig@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
|> Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
|> >
|> >In late April, a draft standard will be made available on a public FTP
|> >site. To find out how you can get a copy, and how to submit comments
|> >for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
|> > c++std-notify@research.att.com
|> >
|> >You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
|> >when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
|> >for submitting comments.
|> >
|> >The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
|> >list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.
|>
|>  Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
|> newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
|> and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
|> as well)

How much time does the public have to comment?  Two months?  Six months?
A year?  It would take quite a bit of *time* to setup a non-alt newsgroup.
It would be faster (and probably easier) to set up a mailing list.  Then
it would be enough to post information to comp.std.c++ periodically on how
to join.

|>  This newsgroup would be the place to send comments on
|> the proposed C++ Standard which have been carefully considered.
|> NOT a place for discussion of ideas. (comp.std.c++ already
|> exists for that)
|>
|>  Instead of just a moderator, there needs to be an
|> impartial moderator AND a person who will communicate
|> with X3J16 and WG21 (liason).

In fact, with a mailing list, it would be easy to have different people
dealing with different proposals.

|>  The job of the moderator will be to condense
|> multiple comments into a single proposal and post it
|> with a request that people supporting it send in their
|> "signatures". That might even be done on the initiative
|> of the moderator reading comp.std.c++.
|>
|>  The moderator will then ensure the signed comments
|> are passed on to X3J16 and WG21 in time, and are worded concisely.

Again, the person passing on the comments need not the same person (or
persons) who put together the proposal.  In other words, people *not*
belonging to the ANSI/ISO committees could do some of the work.

|>  I know this is vague, but here are two conflicting
|> goals I think we need to work on resolving:
|>
|>  1) The committee _wants_ informed public comment,
|> but not reams and reams and reams of it. And we don't want
|> _uninformed_ comment, like extension proposals which are
|> not well enough worded to be voted on.

Isn't this inevitable?  How much "public comment" was there when C
was being standardized?  How much of it was actually useful?  I would
expect that, because of increased communication today, the amount of
noise would be much greater.

|>  Criticisms of the Working Paper at this stage
|> need to be of the form of requests for specific changes
|> to the text of the document -- not generalised requests
|> for new features. A moderator can both reject comments
|> not of the correct form, and help synthesise ones that
|> refect popular opinion.

If (keeping our fingers crossed) the people posting to the list
are for the most part reasonable, a moderator may not even be
necessary.  Since it is a mailing list, it is highly unlikely that
newbies would join and post inappropriate messages.

|>  2) The public _wants_ to have its say. Anyone not
|> satisfied with the moderators efforts can still submit
|> comments directly to the committee. However if we do
|> not do something to coordinate our efforts into the form
|> of a popular petition we should not complain too loudly
|> our comment was politely ignored without much consideration.
|>
|>  The committee has _limited_ resources.
|>
|>  If you want to have your say and have it noticed,
|> you need to find like minded people and join up with them.
|>
|>  If the "net" can send in a limited number of
|> well supported and carefully considered proposals to
|> X3J16, this may influence the USA National Body position.
|>
|>  And other National Bodies might agree and add
|> some of the comments to their own positions.
|>
|>  Bottom Line: Standardisation is about building
|> consensus. If the "net" can find a way to express that --
|> which appears reasonable -- we'll be listened to, otherwise
|> "we" will deserve to be ignored.

Exactly.

|> --
|>         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

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ed Osinski
 Computer Science Department, New York University
 E-mail:  osinski@cs.nyu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of
religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave
to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of
violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film.  This was
the Spanish Inquisition...
    -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

In article 95Apr18010358@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu, haydens@wayback.atc.ll.mit.edu (Hayden Schultz x3685 ) writes:
>
>Is there a reasonably current version of the draft available on the
>net?

In late April, a draft standard will be made available on a public FTP
site. To find out how you can get a copy, and how to submit comments
for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
 c++std-notify@research.att.com

You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
for submitting comments.

The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.

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

In article <3n0u2o$6ig@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>In late April, a draft standard will be made available on a public FTP
>site. To find out how you can get a copy, and how to submit comments
>for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
> c++std-notify@research.att.com
>
>You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
>when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
>for submitting comments.
>
>The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
>list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.

 Actually, I'd like to suggest creation of a new _moderated_
newsgroup whose purpose is liason with BOTH the X3J16 committee
and the WG21 committee. (And perhaps the ISO and ANSI C committee
as well)

 This newsgroup would be the place to send comments on
the proposed C++ Standard which have been carefully considered.
NOT a place for discussion of ideas. (comp.std.c++ already
exists for that)

 Instead of just a moderator, there needs to be an
impartial moderator AND a person who will communicate
with X3J16 and WG21 (liason).

 The job of the moderator will be to condense
multiple comments into a single proposal and post it
with a request that people supporting it send in their
"signatures". That might even be done on the initiative
of the moderator reading comp.std.c++.

 The moderator will then ensure the signed comments
are passed on to X3J16 and WG21 in time, and are worded concisely.

 I know this is vague, but here are two conflicting
goals I think we need to work on resolving:

 1) The committee _wants_ informed public comment,
but not reams and reams and reams of it. And we don't want
_uninformed_ comment, like extension proposals which are
not well enough worded to be voted on.

 Criticisms of the Working Paper at this stage
need to be of the form of requests for specific changes
to the text of the document -- not generalised requests
for new features. A moderator can both reject comments
not of the correct form, and help synthesise ones that
refect popular opinion.

 2) The public _wants_ to have its say. Anyone not
satisfied with the moderators efforts can still submit
comments directly to the committee. However if we do
not do something to coordinate our efforts into the form
of a popular petition we should not complain too loudly
our comment was politely ignored without much consideration.

 The committee has _limited_ resources.

 If you want to have your say and have it noticed,
you need to find like minded people and join up with them.

 If the "net" can send in a limited number of
well supported and carefully considered proposals to
X3J16, this may influence the USA National Body position.

 And other National Bodies might agree and add
some of the comments to their own positions.

 Bottom Line: Standardisation is about building
consensus. If the "net" can find a way to express that --
which appears reasonable -- we'll be listened to, otherwise
"we" will deserve to be ignored.

--
        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