In article <KANZE.95Apr28191528@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de says...
>
>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) wri
>tes:
>|> > 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
>
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If what you have said reflects the view of the majority of ISO members,
this implies that the current C++ standards efforts are truly an
international activity and a small ANSI committee will have little
impact on the conclusions reached by the ISO members.

If it happens that most of the ANSI members are really ISO members, then
there is very little need for an ANSI committee. Americans can not expect
that their interests will be served any more than a citizen of another
country. To give Americans the impression that there is a large ANSI
committee (which is actually an ISO committee) is somewhat deceiving.