In article <1995Apr27.125813.18357@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>,
 <mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> wrote:

>I'd rather say that the ANSI structure is designed for deliberation
>by technical experts whereas the ISO structure is designed for
>negotiation between political entities.  Someone correct me if I misspeak
>but the hope underlying the C++ effort is that the technical deliberation
>can take place _across_ the political boundaries so that we don't have to
>resort to political processes (negotiation) when technical process
>(deliberation) are more appropriate.

 Unfortunately for at least the last year the technical
discussions have been clouded by politics. In particular
emphasis on the schedule and timing is not a technical issue
but a political one.

 Sensible things to consider doing have been confronted
with BOTH technical and political counter-arguments.

 For example:

 a) STL was accepted, the main opposition was "not enough time"

 b) hash tables were rejected without consideration
    because there was "not enough time"


--
        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 <D7zAEG.D7q@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John
Max Skaller) writes:

|>  Unfortunately for at least the last year the technical
|> discussions have been clouded by politics. In particular
|> emphasis on the schedule and timing is not a technical issue
|> but a political one.

If it is a political one, then it has technical repercussions.  (And
of course, there is probably not a single technical issue without
political repercussions.)

For me, the schedule problem *is* a technical issue, as it affects my
ability to write portable code.  (But I'm glad STL slipped in under
the wire anyway:-).)
--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

In article <D7M64G.H4t@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
> In article <3ngg7m$i9n@paperboy.wellfleet.com>,
> Todd Short  <tshort@baynetworks.com> wrote:
> >"Basically, we have decided not to accept anything that doesn't pass under both
> >ANSI and ISO voting rules.
>
>  Some juggling at each meeting occurs when a disagreement
> slips through to the formal motions.
>
> >This implies that the committee operates rather like a
> >bicameral parlement with a "lower house" (ANSI) doing
> >most of the arguing and an
> >"upper house" (ISO) ratifying the decisions of the lower house
> >provided they make
> >sense and duly respect the interests of the international community
>
>  .. I'm not sure Bjarne would be quite so sure about the
> ANSI committee doing most of the arguing anymore. :-)

I'd rather say that the ANSI structure is designed for deliberation
by technical experts whereas the ISO structure is designed for
negotiation between political entities.  Someone correct me if I misspeak
but the hope underlying the C++ effort is that the technical deliberation
can take place _across_ the political boundaries so that we don't have to
resort to political processes (negotiation) when technical process
(deliberation) are more appropriate.
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
 (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)

In article <1995Apr27.125813.18357@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>
mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:

|> In article <D7M64G.H4t@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
|> > In article <3ngg7m$i9n@paperboy.wellfleet.com>,
|> > Todd Short  <tshort@baynetworks.com> wrote:
|> > >"Basically, we have decided not to accept anything that doesn't pass under both
|> > >ANSI and ISO voting rules.
|> >
|> >  Some juggling at each meeting occurs when a disagreement
|> > slips through to the formal motions.
|> >
|> > >This implies that the committee operates rather like a
|> > >bicameral parlement with a "lower house" (ANSI) doing
|> > >most of the arguing and an
|> > >"upper house" (ISO) ratifying the decisions of the lower house
|> > >provided they make
|> > >sense and duly respect the interests of the international community
|> >
|> >  .. I'm not sure Bjarne would be quite so sure about the
|> > ANSI committee doing most of the arguing anymore. :-)

|> I'd rather say that the ANSI structure is designed for deliberation
|> by technical experts whereas the ISO structure is designed for
|> negotiation between political entities.

I don't think so.  The ISO representatives are their respective
countries technical experts, not politicians.  Of course, this doesn't
exclude politics in either group.  Any time there is an organization
consisting of people, there will be some politics.

In fact, from what I've seen, most of the `arguing' takes place in the
working groups or the mail reflectors, where there is no distinction
between what is ISO and what is ANSI.
--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

In article <3ngg7m$i9n@paperboy.wellfleet.com>,
Todd Short  <tshort@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>"Basically, we have decided not to accept anything that doesn't pass under both
>ANSI and ISO voting rules.

 Some juggling at each meeting occurs when a disagreement
slips through to the formal motions.

>This implies that the committee operates rather like a
>bicameral parlement with a "lower house" (ANSI) doing
>most of the arguing and an
>"upper house" (ISO) ratifying the decisions of the lower house
>provided they make
>sense and duly respect the interests of the international community

 .. I'm not sure Bjarne would be quite so sure about the
ANSI committee doing most of the arguing anymore. :-)

--
        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

bug@cyberdex.cuug.ab.ca (Trever Miller) wrote:
>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>
>[snippity snip]
>
>: Why do people think it is not important that an *American* National
>: Standard be directed by American citizens?
>
>Sure - go ahead and paint yerselves into a corner.  Being anti-foreigner
>and isolationist is a good way to get left behind in the dust in today's
>world.
>

For those who don't know and haven't gone through ISO 9000 training (which tells
you about some of this stuff), here's the deal.

ANSI is a government sanctioned (though I believe it's not a government agency)
orgainization that promotes and creates standards. They do not only deal with
computers, but many other technological areas. I believe that there are some
OSHA/ANSI standards out there.

What people become confused about is that ANSI is one of dozens of national
standards orgainizations. Almost every country has their own standards
orgainization. Each of these orgainizations usually related in some way to
ISO.

ISO standards are international standards, aggreed to by the member countries.

ANSI standards are U.S. standard, aggreed to by the towns, cities, counties,
states, corporations and agencies of the U.S.

The British, French, Canadian, Italian, German, etc. need not follow ANSI
standards, in general, they follow their own organization's standards and ISO.

Each member country of ISO can propose their standards to be an ISO standard,
or part of it. Once ISO adopts an international standard, some countries do
change their own standards to fall in line with ISO. Some do not. Some partially
do.

This is from "The Design and Evolution of C++" by Bjarne Stroustrup, P136:

"There are actually several committees formed to standardize C++. The
first and largest is the American National Standards Institute's ANSI-X3J16
committee. That committee is the responsibility of the Computer and
Business Equipment Manufactures Association, CBEMA, and operates under it's
rules. In particular, this means one-company-one-vote and a personw who
doesn't work for a company counts as a company. A member can start voting
at the second meeting attended. Officially, the most important committee
is the International Standards Organizations ISO-WG-21. That committee
operates under internation rules and is the one that will finally make the
result an international standard. In particular, this means one-country-one-
vote voting. Other countries, including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany,
Japan, Russia and Sweden now have their own national committees for standardizing
C++. These national committees send requests, recommendations and representatives
to the joint ANSI/ISO meetings.

"Basically, we have decided not to accept anything that doesn't pass under both
ANSI and ISO voting rules. This implies that the committee operates rather like a
bicameral parlement with a "lower house" (ANSI) doing most of the arguing and an
"upper house" (ISO) ratifying the decisions of the lower house provided they make
sense and duly respect the interests of the international community
..
"The ANSI and ISO committees meet jointly 3 times a year...."

That is section 2 of chapter 6. I recommend that any of those who question the
standardization process, or want to know more pick up this book.
--
-Todd Short
// NOW:   tshort@wellfleet.com
// LATER: tshort@baynetworks.com
// "One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the internet".