In article <3l4d3e$2se@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|Yes...it is unfortunate that the executives that have helped to
|create the Internet do not even use it...and in some cases shun it..
|
|Where is...Bob Allen the Chairman of AT&T...does he have an opinion?
|Where is...Bill Gates the Chairman of Microsoft...does he have an opinion?

Last time I checked Bill G was at the obvious place on the internet.
I don't know to what extent he helped "create" the internet, however ;-)

In <3l4ajr$p9c@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>Several people (ANSI committee members?) have sent me e-mail indicating
>that the DRAFT standard will be placed on an ftp server for "equal access"
>by everyone (at least those with ftp). Hopefully, when this occurs this
>news will "leak" into comp.std.c++.
>
When the draft is available via FTP it will most definitely be announced here.
I intend to post the details unless somebody beats me to it. Expect an
announcement shortly after Easter.

Steve.
--
UUCP:  ...!uknet!warwick!steve Internet: steve@maths.warwick.ac.uk
JANET:  steve@uk.ac.warwick.maths PHONE:  +44 1203 524657

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>Keep in mind the term "press" in this country is rapidly changing...
>In the computer industry, just as in politics...
>Many of these "editors" have "day jobs" that pay their bills...
>In most cases, these people do not actually "work" in the industry....
>The Internet has many facets...here are my definitions...
>If ANSI is really concerned about...
>Anyone that has ever been part of an ANSI committee...
>The RFD, CFV process for Usenet group creation is obsolete or out-moded...
>... a person should be able to "tune into comp.std.c++" and ask for...
>... this way I would not have to read postings from 14 year olds ...
>Also, the system should at this point in time be able to ...
>if AT&T had...
>Linux would not be necessary because ...
>Fortunately, during this period, companies like Microsoft ...
>Even though they have not "invented" anything, as has Bell Labs...
>C++ remains as the last gun-fight, that is still in progress...
>Processors and followed DEC (and Intel)...
>NCR...
>AT&T was a great company...
>(example: BSD UNIX)...
>Microsoft can clearly now step in to take over ...

[ Majority of volumous and widely aimed tirade deleted ]

Jim, is there anyone else in the industry who you'd like to rip into while
you're in tirade mode?  It's certainly a fascinatingly paranoid fantasy world
view you've got there.  I'm concerned though that you may have missed one or
two important groups or individuals who have perhaps escaped unscathed so far;
and that would seem a little unfair.

bemused,
Graham
--
Graham Stoney
Promotions Manager,
CISRA Ice & Inline Skate Spectaculars

In article <3l2aor$rmf@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3l25ip$knt@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>As I have posted in the past, I think that it is very misleading
>>for an ANSI group to have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++ and then
>>use it for very "selective" postings. The net effect is that casual
>>or regular readers get a very different view of the world.
>
>The ANSI group doesn't "have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++".  This
>newsgroup wasn't created by or for the ANSI group, it was created by the
>Usenet community for its own purposes.  Individual X3J16 members might
>choose to participate in the newsgroup, but it has never had any formal
>relationship with the ANSI/ISO committee.  The only thing the newsgroup
>readership and the committee have in common is that they are both concerned
>with the C++ standard.

Does the ANSI committee have an ftp site with the "52 Megabyte" file
of "all" correspondance that was referenced in other newsgroups?

Does this file have a list of all of the members, the companies funding
the effort, as well as all e-mail interchanges?

I hope that file, isn't just the syntax definition?


--
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 <D63qL5.DIt@research.att.com> ark@research.att.com (Andrew
Koenig) writes:

|> In article <D5s6vo.37E@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

|> >  X3J16 does not have citizenship requirements, except for
|> > special "administrative" voting proceedures (called meetings of the
|> > US Tag).

|> Tiny correction: there are no citizenship requirements for the US TAG,
|> but members thereof must be resentatives of `US domiciled corporations.'
|> I think people representing themselves are OK too, whether or not they
|> are citizens, as long as they live in the US.

But...  The US TAG is different from the ANSI committee (and costs an
extra $300, too).  For example, I am a member of the ANSI committee,
but *not* a member of the US TAG (for the reasons Andy presents).  I
think that ANSI members who are eligible for TAG membership *are* TAG
members, whether they want it or not.  At least, they get billed the
extra $300, whether they want it or not.

If I understand things correctly (which I probably don't), then ANSI
members vote on the ANSI standard, and US TAG members vote as to how
ANSI should vote on the ISO standard.  At least in principal.  In
practice, when the vote has been so close that this might make a
difference, the motion is generally withdrawn to be modified to
something that enjoys more consensus.
--
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 <3kvq1t$qci@tools.near.net> barmar@nic.near.net writes:

> In article <3kv6q2$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
> writes:
> >ANSI and ISO activities should be open, above board, public, etc.
> > AND should not be structured so that the following people
> >  can not easily participate:
> >
> > 1. Handicapped people that can not travel.
> > 2. People without huge companies backing them.
> > 3. People without "university" access.
> > 4. People without a network to the "press"
>
> OK, I understand how face-to-face meetings can be biased against groups 1
> and 2, but how does it bias against 3 and 4?  Universities generally have
> pretty limited budgets, so I don't think having university access would
> make it any easier to get travel funds.  I have an even harder time
> understanding the relevance of press access; there's very little that a
> standards committee does that's newsworthy.

Also there is nothing like face to face discussion for certain issues,
which I think includes this.  Secondly, it is *not* a discussion for
everyone to participate in.

Elliott

In article <3kv6q2$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>ANSI and ISO activities should be open, above board, public, etc.
> AND should not be structured so that the following people
>  can not easily participate:
>
> 1. Handicapped people that can not travel.
> 2. People without huge companies backing them.
> 3. People without "university" access.
> 4. People without a network to the "press"

OK, I understand how face-to-face meetings can be biased against groups 1
and 2, but how does it bias against 3 and 4?  Universities generally have
pretty limited budgets, so I don't think having university access would
make it any easier to get travel funds.  I have an even harder time
understanding the relevance of press access; there's very little that a
standards committee does that's newsworthy.

>Get with it...if you are on the Internet then you are using a facility
>that empowers the people in the above list. You should be ashamed of using
>this facility for your "selected" uses (e-mail, benign postings, etc.)
>and then retire to your "inner circles" to handle the "real work".

Even if they used the Internet, that doesn't mean that they should open the
discussion group to the entire world (i.e. they probably shouldn't use
Usenet).  The problem is that Usenet is an extremely poor medium for
detailed design discussions.  The work that takes place in a one-week
committee meeting would take months if you tried to conduct it in on
Usenet.

An example is the process used to create new newsgroups.  This was designed
specifically to allow everyone on Usenet to have a say if they want.  But
it means that every decision requires about a month of debate followed by
several weeks of voting.  Multiply that by the hundreds of votes that must
be conducted to produce an industry standard, and you should see that
Usenet is completely inappropriate for this.

The original Common Lisp language was designed almost exclusively on the
Internet (actually, much of the work probably took place on the Arpanet,
before the Internet was born).  But those were the days when a map of the
Internet fit on a single piece of paper.  The Internet is not so simple
now.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3l1od5$cn2@druid.borland.com>, pete@borland.com says...
>
>In article <3l1cek$lsr@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
says:
>>
>>The OuterNet includes MUDs, MOOs, etc. These could be used for working
>>group meetings with a "simple telnet connection". Some MUDs like The
>>MUD Institute (telnet tmi.lp.mud.org 5555), have conference centers that
>>allow members to sit in an "isolated" room and "observers" can sit in
>>the gallery, like at medical school above the operating room. The members
>>of the meeting can "talk" (post to the meeting), the people in the gallery
>>can only hear, they can not "disrupt" the meeting...
>>
>>If ANSI is really concerned about people participating in the meetings
>>who have paid their membership dues, this is "easier" to control in a
>>MUD vs. a face to face meeting. The telnet connection and access to the
>>conference can be easily controlled. Also, the entire conference is
>>logged, so no one has to take paper notes. People can bring prepared
>>"text messages" and post them to the board.
>>
>
>        Ah, now I see: Mr. Fleming has a commercial interest in attracting
>people to use this service that his company provides. That goes a long
>way to explaining his unhapiness with the way X3J16 conducts business: he's
>not getting his cut.
>

ROTFL....The MUD Institute is run by a University near Boston...

It is Free...

>>Let's face it, the technology is there. Anyone that has ever been part
>>of an ANSI committee (and finished the process), will know that the
>>"real work" is done behind the scenes. The meetings that are held around
>>the world are social gatherings and perks paid to people by their
>>companies so that they can travel to interesting places and relax with
>>their colleagues.
>

>Bullshit. I don't regard traveling to Nashua, New Hampshire in the middle
>of Winter as a perk. And being snowed in in the Holiday Inn doesn't
>exactly qualify as "travel to interesting places". In fact, the week-long
>meetings are quite grueling, and getting back to a normal 50-hour work
>week is a relief.

If it is that bad, maybe you should try using ALL of the Internet
to make your life easier.

By ALL of the Internet, I mean more than e-mail between your "closed
circle of friends". I mean live discussion groups via the various
facilities. I mean ftp sites of the working papers.

As I have posted in the past, I think that it is very misleading
for an ANSI group to have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++ and then
use it for very "selective" postings. The net effect is that casual
or regular readers get a very different view of the world.

While can understand that this is exactly the goal of the "committee".
I can also tell you that you and the "boys" will get about as far
with this as you have gotten. We have been watching this for 15 years
and it will be stopped.

Maybe this is how the Danish pornography operations work. This is
not how ANSI operations are going to proceed. If you have not noticed
by now, you and the other boys had better start reading the lines
and between the lines very carefully. I have been in this business
since 1976, I was there before Prodigy was a glimmer in anyone's
eye. I was there before BORING-LAND skimmed the cream off the C market.
If you are looking for a fight here, you have come to the right place.


--
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 <3l25ip$knt@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>As I have posted in the past, I think that it is very misleading
>for an ANSI group to have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++ and then
>use it for very "selective" postings. The net effect is that casual
>or regular readers get a very different view of the world.

The ANSI group doesn't "have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++".  This
newsgroup wasn't created by or for the ANSI group, it was created by the
Usenet community for its own purposes.  Individual X3J16 members might
choose to participate in the newsgroup, but it has never had any formal
relationship with the ANSI/ISO committee.  The only thing the newsgroup
readership and the committee have in common is that they are both concerned
with the C++ standard.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

[note: I removed comp.object from this thread]

I think it would be great if standards processes were conducted
completely in the open, and maybe someday they will, but for now
the current process works.  Work habits and political structures
have yet to evolve.

I don't participate in the official process, but I can
understand why some discussion takes place away from public
view.  How long would the process take if comp.lang.c++ was the
medium for communication?

I doubt that any secret agendas (other than C's silly rules
about the nature of NULL) will stand the test of time.  Remain
calm.

In article <3kvq1t$qci@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3kv6q2$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>ANSI and ISO activities should be open, above board, public, etc.
>>       AND should not be structured so that the following people
>>               can not easily participate:
>>
>>       1. Handicapped people that can not travel.
>>       2. People without huge companies backing them.
>>       3. People without "university" access.
>>       4. People without a network to the "press"
>
>OK, I understand how face-to-face meetings can be biased against groups 1
>and 2, but how does it bias against 3 and 4?  Universities generally have
>pretty limited budgets, so I don't think having university access would
>make it any easier to get travel funds.  I have an even harder time
>understanding the relevance of press access; there's very little that a
>standards committee does that's newsworthy.
>

I'm sorry, I should have said, "university access"....yes, that is clearer.
 also
#4 should be: "People who are NOT part of the press "network"".

Keep in mind the term "press" in this country is rapidly changing.
For example, each person that "posts" to Usenet is by definition a
member of the "press". Computer World recently had an article that
soon only people in companies with the authority to issue "Press Releases"
will be allowed to post to the net.

By the "press "network"", I mean the group of "researchers", consultants,
pundits, groupies, professors, gentleman farmers, etc. that hang out at
all of the major trade-shows and smooze with the "press" and set the
"spin" for the industry. In the computer industry, just as in politics,
many of the names that you see on mastheads of magazines, newspapers,
newsletters, etc. are just that, a name. The work is done by a clerical
staff and the "editor" writes the equivalent of one Usenet posting each
month and "smoozes" with the rest of the industry. Many of these "editors"
have "day jobs" that pay their bills and their travel expenses to the
trade shows. In most cases, these people do not actually "work" in the
industry. We have to be careful though because "smoozing" and "conference
hopping" is hard work. (It is much harder than "cruising the net").


>>Get with it...if you are on the Internet then you are using a facility
>>that empowers the people in the above list. You should be ashamed of using
>>this facility for your "selected" uses (e-mail, benign postings, etc.)
>>and then retire to your "inner circles" to handle the "real work".
>
>Even if they used the Internet, that doesn't mean that they should open the
>discussion group to the entire world (i.e. they probably shouldn't use
>Usenet).  The problem is that Usenet is an extremely poor medium for
>detailed design discussions.  The work that takes place in a one-week
>committee meeting would take months if you tried to conduct it in on
>Usenet.
>

The Internet has many facets...here are my definitions...

InnerNet: e-mail, snail mail, telephone, face-to-face (ANSI lives here)
InterNet: The "highways" as well as billboards (Usenet)
OuterNet: The private servers with Doors and DoorSteps...
 (Yes, Microsoft gave us Windows...Unir gives you DoorStep(tm)...)

The OuterNet includes MUDs, MOOs, etc. These could be used for working
group meetings with a "simple telnet connection". Some MUDs like The
MUD Institute (telnet tmi.lp.mud.org 5555), have conference centers that
allow members to sit in an "isolated" room and "observers" can sit in
the gallery, like at medical school above the operating room. The members
of the meeting can "talk" (post to the meeting), the people in the gallery
can only hear, they can not "disrupt" the meeting...

If ANSI is really concerned about people participating in the meetings
who have paid their membership dues, this is "easier" to control in a
MUD vs. a face to face meeting. The telnet connection and access to the
conference can be easily controlled. Also, the entire conference is
logged, so no one has to take paper notes. People can bring prepared
"text messages" and post them to the board.

Let's face it, the technology is there. Anyone that has ever been part
of an ANSI committee (and finished the process), will know that the
"real work" is done behind the scenes. The meetings that are held around
the world are social gatherings and perks paid to people by their
companies so that they can travel to interesting places and relax with
their colleagues. They justify these perks on the basis that they worked
hard behind the scenes to write the standard. If the Internet were used,
all of the focus would shift to work, there would not be the rewards of
international travel to "compensate the workers". Too much emphasis would
be placed on writing the standard and completing the process. In the
current system, the longer the standards process goes on, the more travel
these people rack up. (Also, keep in mind the frequent flyer miles that
one can accumulate...if you ever get a vacation...of course, who needs
a vacation when you get to "jet-set" around the world...discussing, in
this case, a computer language...)


>An example is the process used to create new newsgroups.  This was designed
>specifically to allow everyone on Usenet to have a say if they want.  But
>it means that every decision requires about a month of debate followed by
>several weeks of voting.  Multiply that by the hundreds of votes that must
>be conducted to produce an industry standard, and you should see that
>Usenet is completely inappropriate for this.
>

The RFD, CFV process for Usenet group creation is obsolete or out-moded
whichever you prefer. It is also "mined" with the presence of human beings.
That process should be totally automated at this point in time. (1998 for
me, 1995 for you)...The system should allow people to post with Structured
Subject Headings and the person should have a "status", just like in a
MUD. The Structured Subject field should be used to "sort" the posting.
Newsgroups should be automatically created and abandoned based on the
posting traffic. People should be able to get more information on traffic
statistics as well as the "status" of the person doing the posting.

As an example of "status" as it relates to ANSI C++, a person should be
able to "tune into comp.std.c++" and ask for all of the postings by
"the members of the ANSI committee", this way I would not have to read
postings from 14 year olds posting from Berkeley California accounts
that appear to be physics geniuses.

Also, the system should at this point in time be able to measure the
"information" content or added value of a posting. Postings which consist
of the original posting plus, "I agree" should be filed way down the list.
When people see this, they will not waste their time and ours posting noise.

My main point is that humans CAN NOT be allowed to be at the bottlenecks
of these information interchange systems for two reasons. 1. They can not
handle the volume. 2. They can arbitrarily censor/augment/redirect the
content.

>The original Common Lisp language was designed almost exclusively on the
>Internet (actually, much of the work probably took place on the Arpanet,
>before the Internet was born).  But those were the days when a map of the
>Internet fit on a single piece of paper.  The Internet is not so simple
>now.

Yes, you are correct, the world is not so simple, the Internet is not
so simple, ANSI is not so simple, and shamefully C++ is not so simple.

If the Internet had been used, if AT&T had NOT spent their time suing
the University of California Berkeley over UNIX, if AT&T had not spent
their time pushing C++ and suppressing C+@, if AT&T had not spent their
time re-inventing overlapped windows on bitmapped graphics displays and
then waving their patent in people's faces, all of these efforts would
have been completed 10 years ago.

Linux would not be necessary because we would have a solid multi-tasking
operating system running on low-cost hardware and we would have had it
10 years ago. We would also have a true object based system with an
understandable language and a large reusable class library and we would
have had it 10 years ago. UNIX would not have been sold, it would not
have been "for sale", just as the Statue of Liberty is not for sale
(at least the last time I looked).

I am glad that Linux has happened. We are now entering a renaissance
of computing. People have seen the light and now realize that the
artificial bottle-necks placed in the development of the computer
industry by giants such as AT&T have restricted the flow of ideas, have
restricted the development of technology, and have restricted the
improvement in the quality of life on the planet.

Fortunately, during this period, companies like Microsoft took up the
banner and selected morsels of AT&T technology and packaged it for the
masses. Microsoft's unique understanding of the opportunities for the
past 10 years has either been very lucky or brilliant. I prefer brilliant.
Even though they have not "invented" anything, as has Bell Labs, they
have been able to "pick" the best inventions to package and sell.

Now the torch has been passed, AT&T Bell Laboratories has been largely
removed from the "software busines" partly as a result of divestiture
(1/1/84) and partly as a result of the fact that they were unable to
understand and deal with the world they helped to create. Unfortunately,
AT&T Bell Laboratories remains as a smoldering heap of radio-active
intellectual waste. No one can go near it and no one can clean it up.

All of us can not undo the past, we can try to do better in the future.
In looking back over my last 20 years in the UNIX industry, I would
venture to say that no one could predict the impact that divestiture
would have on our industry. No one could predict what would happen when
a group of Bell Labs researchers who had never had to "compete" in their
lives were suddenly told in the mid-80's to "compete", to "go get them",
to "push", to "shove", to "do what it takes".

What is humorous is that many of these people were already "at the top",
when ordered to compete, they did not have anyone to compete with. The
result was they shot each other.

Now, here we are in the mid-90s, the dust is settling on the shoot-outs
at the OK corral. Most of the world could care less and Microsoft now
has most of the guns, which they skillfully collected during the shoot-out.
Novell of course bought the big gun, UNIX, and found out they could not
fire that gun even if they did have a bullet. They enshrined it as a
monument and threw out the bullets.

C++ remains as the last gun-fight, that is still in progress. Unfortunately,
at this late stage of the game, it is largely an irrelevant battle.
There are so many more solutions that are now available and with the
power of the Internet, those solutions are at your finger tips.

The action has now shifted back to networking and interconnection
that was also pioneered by AT&T and abandoned in the late 70's. I was
there for that one, at the time I was younger and I assumed that the
management knew what they were doing. They shifted their focus to 3B
Processors and followed DEC (and Intel), they shifted their focus to PCs
and followed IBM, then they shifted their focus to workstations and
followed Sun, they forced System V R4 down Sun's throat, then they bought
NCR. During all of this, they never realized that they were at the top
in the 70's, could have lead the world, and instead followed it.

AT&T was a great company. AT&T Bell Laboratories was a great research
laboratory. Unfortunately, the combination of the rapid growth of the
computer industry coupled with the Divestiture in 1984 were too much
for the giant to coordinate. The giant "followed" every flashy trend
in the industry and provided little leadership, only an occassional
slap with a long stick. (example: BSD UNIX)

For those people that have been "following" AT&T for the past 20 years,
I suggest that you wake up and recognize that AT&T has been "following"
others for the past 20 years (and you may not have known it, standing
in the shadow of the giant). You can continue to follow them, but I
can tell you the giant is walking in circles and the path does not
lead anywhere.

Microsoft can clearly now step in to take over where the AT&T giant
left off. This transition has been going on for many years. In many
cases the "hand-offs" have not been obviuos to the industry, but it
does not take a rocket scientist to see the results.

Even though I can understand how many people will move from the shadow
of the AT&T giant to the shadow of the Microsoft giant, there is another
option. You can walk on your own, you can now cruise the Internet
alone (or in small groups), you do not need to ride on the backs of
the giants, you can be a giant yourself.

Good luck in your journeys.

--
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 <3l1cek$lsr@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) says:
>
>The OuterNet includes MUDs, MOOs, etc. These could be used for working
>group meetings with a "simple telnet connection". Some MUDs like The
>MUD Institute (telnet tmi.lp.mud.org 5555), have conference centers that
>allow members to sit in an "isolated" room and "observers" can sit in
>the gallery, like at medical school above the operating room. The members
>of the meeting can "talk" (post to the meeting), the people in the gallery
>can only hear, they can not "disrupt" the meeting...
>
>If ANSI is really concerned about people participating in the meetings
>who have paid their membership dues, this is "easier" to control in a
>MUD vs. a face to face meeting. The telnet connection and access to the
>conference can be easily controlled. Also, the entire conference is
>logged, so no one has to take paper notes. People can bring prepared
>"text messages" and post them to the board.
>

 Ah, now I see: Mr. Fleming has a commercial interest in attracting
people to use this service that his company provides. That goes a long
way to explaining his unhapiness with the way X3J16 conducts business: he's
not getting his cut.

>Let's face it, the technology is there. Anyone that has ever been part
>of an ANSI committee (and finished the process), will know that the
>"real work" is done behind the scenes. The meetings that are held around
>the world are social gatherings and perks paid to people by their
>companies so that they can travel to interesting places and relax with
>their colleagues.

Bullshit. I don't regard traveling to Nashua, New Hampshire in the middle
of Winter as a perk. And being snowed in in the Holiday Inn doesn't
exactly qualify as "travel to interesting places". In fact, the week-long
meetings are quite grueling, and getting back to a normal 50-hour work
week is a relief.

In article <gjohnsonD60vzx.A0s@netcom.com> gjohnson@netcom.com (Serendipitous Freelance Hacker) writes:

> I think it would be great if standards processes were conducted
> completely in the open, and maybe someday they will, but for now
> the current process works.  Work habits and political structures
> have yet to evolve.

In particular, it hardly seems likely that a Usenet newsgroup
in its current form could be the exclusive medium for producing
a programming language standard.  The problem is the lack of a
decision procedure: how does one determine what the newgroup
has produced?  Who decides?

> I don't participate in the official process, but I can
> understand why some discussion takes place away from public
> view.  How long would the process take if comp.lang.c++ was the
> medium for communication?

Whether this statement is true depends on your definition of
`public view.'  No member of the public is barred from attending
and participating: the only requirements are paying the membership
fees and coming to the meetings.

Actually, I suppose the most restrictive requirement is that the
meetings are conducted in English.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <3kqmll$4ph@druid.borland.com>, pete@borland.com says...
>
>In article <3kmbbo$smd@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
says:
>>
>>In article <3khvv0$ool@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>>
>>>fewer when the meeting is not in
>>>North America.
>>
>>Why is that?
>>On the Internet, latitude and longitude do not matter much.
>
>Seems pretty obvious: the meetings are not held on the Internet. Is there
>a point to these inane questions?

Why aren't the ANSI meetings held on or via the Internet to provide
more people with information, more people with equal access, more
people with the ability to "efficiently" contribute to the process?

AT&T is running ads with a very clear theme...
 "attend class with students from around the world"
 "FAX from the beach in the Caribbean"
 "remote video conferences"
 "say good night to your kids from your hotel..."

I guess they need to make one for holding ANSI meetings which do
 not require people to "beam themselves (via planes) to the meeting"
 but rather "beam the meeting to the people"...
 StarTrek had it backward...

You are wasting the Earth's fossil fuels by flying 80 people to a
meeting which could be held via the Internet...

Why don't computer people USE the technology they create?
Maybe they will better understand and not keep asking...what's the Point?


--
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_|

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <3khvv0$ool@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

>>>It might help people reading this newsgroup to create a filter to
>>>raise the priority of reading articles from those people on the
>>>committee. It would also help to keep everyone up to date on any
>>>changes made on the makeup of the committee.

>>If you are not a member of the committee and not interested in investing
>>the unpaid time and effort to work on the standardization effort,
>>why is it so important to know the membership details of the committee?

>"Because"....(see my other posting)...

>>The membership changes over time, and the participation effort by
>>the volunteers changes as well. You can't tell from the membership
>>list who is doing what anyway.

>The Internet is a high-speed vehicle that is perfect for reporting these
>changes. Let the people on the net be the judge of how to interpret the
>data...

>>>I had my first opportunity to speak face to face today with a person
>>>that accidentally claimed to be on the ANSII committee for C++.
>>>When I asked this person what was happening they could not tell me.
>>>This person said that only 2 or 3 people are doing the work.

>>That is nonsense, and an insult to the dozens of people who have
>>individually invested hundreds or even thousands of hours of their
>>personal time in the standards work.

>I will pass that on to this individual...

How is it that Mr. Fleming usually demands others to present lists
of colleagues and sources, but is remarkably reticent to name
his own contacts?  I wonder what he is hiding.

--
    ciao,
    milo
================================================================
    John DiCamillo                        Pinin' for the fjords?
    milod@netcom.com                  What kind of talk is that?

In article <milodD5yI6q.AM0@netcom.com>, milod@netcom.com says...
>
[snip]
>
>How is it that Mr. Fleming usually demands others to present lists
>of colleagues and sources, but is remarkably reticent to name
>his own contacts?  I wonder what he is hiding.
>

I am not trying to *use* the ANSI vehicle to promote any agendas.
I am not trying to establish an "American" (or ISO) standard with
 "commercial" class libraries waiting in the wings to be sold.

ANSI and ISO activities should be open, above board, public, etc.
 AND should not be structured so that the following people
  can not easily participate:

 1. Handicapped people that can not travel.
 2. People without huge companies backing them.
 3. People without "university" access.
 4. People without a network to the "press"

Get with it...if you are on the Internet then you are using a facility
that empowers the people in the above list. You should be ashamed of using
this facility for your "selected" uses (e-mail, benign postings, etc.)
and then retire to your "inner circles" to handle the "real work".

The ANSI committee's usage of the Internet is about as tasteless as
asking a person in a wheel-chair to borrow their chair on a rainy
day to avoid the puddles in the street...and then leaving the chair
on the other side of the street and yelling..."come and get it..we are done"

If you feel that your activities are best handled in the smoke filled
rooms, and without public information being available, and without
"equal access", then so be it. If that is your position, then I suggest
you stop giving people the "impression" that via the Internet you are
operating your committee in an open and fair manner.

CC: clinton@whitehouse.gov


--
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 <3l2aor$rmf@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3l25ip$knt@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>As I have posted in the past, I think that it is very misleading
>>for an ANSI group to have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++ and then
>>use it for very "selective" postings. The net effect is that casual
>>or regular readers get a very different view of the world.
>
>The ANSI group doesn't "have a newsgroup like comp.std.c++".  This
>newsgroup wasn't created by or for the ANSI group, it was created by the
>Usenet community for its own purposes.  Individual X3J16 members might
>choose to participate in the newsgroup, but it has never had any formal
>relationship with the ANSI/ISO committee.  The only thing the newsgroup
>readership and the committee have in common is that they are both concerned
>with the C++ standard.
>--
>Barry Margolin
>BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>barmar@bbnplanet.com


This is very good news...from what you are saying comp.std.c++ belongs
to the "people of the net". Any postings in it by members of the ANSI
committee are therefore placed there as "people" and not as members of
the committee.

This also implies that the ANSI C++ Standards Process is even more
"private" than everyone thought. At first glance it appeared that some
of the their activities were being reported in comp.std.c++ as well as
a variety of other "paper" publications. From what you are saying this
is purely a coincidence.

Several people (ANSI committee members?) have sent me e-mail indicating
that the DRAFT standard will be placed on an ftp server for "equal access"
by everyone (at least those with ftp). Hopefully, when this occurs this
news will "leak" into comp.std.c++.

Maybe comp.std.c++ should really be comp.std.leaks.c++...

--
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 <D61x95.II6@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com says...
>
>In article <gjohnsonD60vzx.A0s@netcom.com> gjohnson@netcom.com
(Serendipitous Freelance Ha
>cker) writes:
>
>> I think it would be great if standards processes were conducted
>> completely in the open, and maybe someday they will, but for now
>> the current process works.  Work habits and political structures
>> have yet to evolve.
>
>In particular, it hardly seems likely that a Usenet newsgroup
>in its current form could be the exclusive medium for producing
>a programming language standard.  The problem is the lack of a
>decision procedure: how does one determine what the newgroup
>has produced?  Who decides?
>

I agree, I have advocated the FULL use of the Internet and OuterNet..
 (e-mail, usenet, ftp, telnet to MUDs and MOOs, IRC, etc. etc. etc.)

>> I don't participate in the official process, but I can
>> understand why some discussion takes place away from public
>> view.  How long would the process take if comp.lang.c++ was the
>> medium for communication?
>

comp.lang.c++ should have "news" and "discussion threads"...
the ftp sites should have papers...e-mail logs...etc.

Where is the 52 Meg file that all of the committee members talk about?


>Whether this statement is true depends on your definition of
>`public view.'  No member of the public is barred from attending
>and participating: the only requirements are paying the membership
>fees and coming to the meetings.
>
>Actually, I suppose the most restrictive requirement is that the
>meetings are conducted in English.
>--
>                                --Andrew Koenig
>                                  ark@research.att.com

I am sure that people could bring translators.

If the meetings were "on the net" via IRC, a program could be used....

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Let's  face it...it is a private "country club"...
the next "round" will be played in Monterey California...
Now there is a "hot-bed" of OO knowledge...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--
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 <gjohnsonD60vzx.A0s@netcom.com>, gjohnson@netcom.com says...
>
>[note: I removed comp.object from this thread]
>
>I think it would be great if standards processes were conducted
>completely in the open, and maybe someday they will, but for now
>the current process works.  Work habits and political structures
>have yet to evolve.
>
Yes...it is unfortunate that the executives that have helped to
create the Internet do not even use it...and in some cases shun it..

Where is...Bob Allen the Chairman of AT&T...does he have an opinion?
Where is...Bill Gates the Chairman of Microsoft...does he have an opinion?

Where is the President of Bell Labs...does s/he have an opinion?
 Is there a President any more?
 Is Bell Labs still "in business"?

>I don't participate in the official process, but I can
>understand why some discussion takes place away from public
>view.  How long would the process take if comp.lang.c++ was the
>medium for communication?
>

I encourage that ALL of the Internet facilities and services be used...
 not just comp.std.c++

>I doubt that any secret agendas (other than C's silly rules
>about the nature of NULL) will stand the test of time.  Remain
>calm.
>

Yes...C++ will take care of itself...these sorts of things implode
on themselves...like the dinosaurs...

--
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 <D5s6vo.37E@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

>  X3J16 does not have citizenship requirements, except for
> special "administrative" voting proceedures (called meetings of the
> US Tag).

Tiny correction: there are no citizenship requirements for the US TAG,
but members thereof must be resentatives of `US domiciled corporations.'
I think people representing themselves are OK too, whether or not they
are citizens, as long as they live in the US.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

: While can understand that this is exactly the goal of the "committee".
: I can also tell you that you and the "boys" will get about as far
: with this as you have gotten. We have been watching this for 15 years
: and it will be stopped.

: Maybe this is how the Danish pornography operations work. This is
: not how ANSI operations are going to proceed. If you have not noticed
: by now, you and the other boys had better start reading the lines
: and between the lines very carefully. I have been in this business
: since 1976, I was there before Prodigy was a glimmer in anyone's
: eye. I was there before BORING-LAND skimmed the cream off the C market.
: If you are looking for a fight here, you have come to the right place.


: Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.


I am a bit suprised nobody brought up the subject of "The Knights Of The
Order Of The Temple" before now. They must clearly be involed in this
conspiracy, this vast plan to subdue the "Knights Who Say Miaow".

--- peter

ps. why this sudden obsession with danish porno ??

In article <3kmbbo$smd@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) says:
>
>In article <3khvv0$ool@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>>
>>fewer when the meeting is not in
>>North America.
>
>Why is that?
>On the Internet, latitude and longitude do not matter much.

Seems pretty obvious: the meetings are not held on the Internet. Is there
a point to these inane questions?

In article <3k866u$drs@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
>ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?

No.  Why would it be?

>Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
>membership in various standards committees?

This is USENET news.  It obeys no such rules, and any attempt to enforce,
or even to suggest such manditory identification will be roundly derided.

Methinks that you have mistaken this for a Senate investigations sub-
committee.

>This might help
>us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
>of the standards activity.

Dialects are not a part of the standards activity.  We leave those as
exercizes for the inspired implementors.  (They always seem to want to
add their own private extensions.)

--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- E-mail: rfg@segfault.us.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
-------------------------------------------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

In article <3kee92$gk1@hustle.rahul.net>, rfg@rahul.net says...
>
>In article <3k866u$drs@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>
>>Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
>>ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?
>
>No.  Why would it be?
>

It might help people reading this newsgroup to create a filter to
raise the priority of reading articles from those people on the
committee. It would also help to keep everyone up to date on any
changes made on the makeup of the committee.

I had my first opportunity to speak face to face today with a person
that accidentally claimed to be on the ANSII committee for C++.
When I asked this person what was happening they could not tell me.
This person said that only 2 or 3 people are doing the work.

If we had a regular posting here, it might help to determine whether
the committee has 3 members, 30 members, or 300 members.

This type of information is useful for those of us that are relying
on the "committee" to develop an American standard. The last time
I looked ANSI stood for, American National Standards Institute.


>>Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
>>membership in various standards committees?
>
>This is USENET news.  It obeys no such rules, and any attempt to enforce,
>or even to suggest such manditory identification will be roundly derided.
>

This may not be mandantory for USENET but I would suppose that ANSI
would want to have accurate records regarding who is responsible for
the work.

>Methinks that you have mistaken this for a Senate investigations sub-
>committee.
>

Is there a Senate investigation going on regarding C++?
If so, who is heading that activity?

Has the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice
investigated the role that C++ has played in the computer industry?


>>This might help
>>us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
>>of the standards activity.
>
>Dialects are not a part of the standards activity.  We leave those as
>exercizes for the inspired implementors.  (They always seem to want to
>add their own private extensions.)
>

OK, it sounds confusing, bit that is nothing new in this arena.

Will the ANSI and ISO standards be different?

--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the OuterNet

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

>It might help people reading this newsgroup to create a filter to
>raise the priority of reading articles from those people on the
>committee. It would also help to keep everyone up to date on any
>changes made on the makeup of the committee.

If you are not a member of the committee and not interested in investing
the unpaid time and effort to work on the standardization effort,
why is it so important to know the membership details of the committee?
The membership changes over time, and the participation effort by
the volunteers changes as well. You can't tell from the membership
list who is doing what anyway.

>I had my first opportunity to speak face to face today with a person
>that accidentally claimed to be on the ANSII committee for C++.
>When I asked this person what was happening they could not tell me.
>This person said that only 2 or 3 people are doing the work.

That is nonsense, and an insult to the dozens of people who have
individually invested hundreds or even thousands of hours of their
personal time in the standards work.

>If we had a regular posting here, it might help to determine whether
>the committee has 3 members, 30 members, or 300 members.

There are somewhere around 250 "members" of the committee. Some of
these are "observing" members, whose participation is minimal or
even confined to receiving paper mailings and email. About 65-80
people attend any given meeting, fewer when the meeting is not in
North America. Of the attendees, about 45 attend regularly enough
to have a vote. (You must attend 2 of every 3 consecutive meetings
to be able to vote, and one organization has only one vote, even if
several members attend meetings.) Of the voting members, most make
a significant contribution to the actual standards effort; some
make little contribution. Some of the non-voting members make
significant contributions. No one is interesting in keeping score
of who does what, and no membership list will give you a clue.

>This may not be mandantory for USENET but I would suppose that ANSI
>would want to have accurate records regarding who is responsible for
>the work.

ANSI does have the membership list, and collects the annual dues from
all members. Literally anyone is allowed to join the ANSI committee,
no matter what their citzenship or place of work or residence.

>Will the ANSI and ISO standards be different?

No. The ISO WG21 and ANSI X3J16 C++ committees work together and will
create one single standard which will both an ANSI and an ISO standard.
--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Firstly...I would like to thank all of the people that have sent
me e-mail, expressing their opinions on this topic (ANSI C++).
It has been a big help. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <881@dawes.win.net>, beman@dawes.win.net says...
>
>
>In article <3k866u$drs@News1.mcs.com>, Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com)
write
>s:
>>
>>Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
>>ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?
>
>It isn't just ANSI.  It is a joint ANSI/ISO (International
>Standards Organization) committee.  For procedural reasons separate
>ISO/WG21 and ANSI/X3J16 formal votes are taken, but for practical
>purposes it is one committee and there will be one and only one C++
>standard, and it will be an international standard.
>

OK...Let me rephrase the question. Is the list of *all* of the
members of the joint ANSI/ISO (International Standards Organization)
committee listed here on a regular basis?

 if(answer.isNo){
  newsgroup.post("...on an irregular basis?");
 }
 else{
  newsgroup.post("When was the last time it was posted?");
 }


>>Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
>>membership in various standards committees? This might help
>>us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
>>of the standards activity.
>
--------------------------
Should people that post here state their citizenship?
Should people that post here state their membership
 in various standards committees?

>Standard C++ will not have "dialects", except for the
>distinction between free-standing and hosted environments.
>
>>Are there going to be different standards for different areas?
>
>No.
>
Good News!

>>For example, the PAL TV standard is different in Europe and the U.S.
>>Also, ISDN is different in various areas. Will C++ be regional?
>
>No.
>
Good News!

>>Is the ANSI committee focusing on the American version or an
>>international version?
>
>International.  Again, it is an ANSI/ISO committee.  Even within
>the ANSI portion, the international procedures are in effect.
>
Good News!

>>Any help in this regard would help. Also, does anyone have the
>>e-mail addess for ANSI handy. Is it hard to join this standards
>>committee.
>
>It is easy to join as an observer or as a voting member.  Voting
>members must attend meetings, and that gets quite expensive.
>

Is the Internet used for meetings?
Have the members considered holding them in The MUD Institute?
 It has virtual conference rooms and even "observation" rooms.
Will the public comments be posted to this newsgroup?

>>When is the next meeting?
>
>July, in California.  Typically about 80 people attend, about 50
>having voting rights.  The others are alternates and people who
>haven't attended enough meetings to have voting rights.
>

Date: July, ???, 1995 (I assume this July)
Time:
TimeZone:
Place: California....Northern or Southern...are we getting warm?
Latitude:
Logitude:
Altitude:
Directions:
DressCode:
CarParking:
BoatDockage:
EntryFee:

>>What is the agenda?
>
>The detailed agenda is complex, but since the big decisions are now
>complete, the main thrust will be responding to public and national
>body comments.  Lots of editorial work remains.
>
Let me get this straight...
 The agenda is complex...at least the detailed version.
 Most of the decisions have been made.
 The public is now expected to comment.
  On what?
 Lots of editorial work remains...
  is that editorial work on the detailed agenda?
  if not...why not just publish the agenda...?


--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the OuterNet

In article <3kjmf3$jgj@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>>>Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
>>>ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?
>>
>>It isn't just ANSI.  It is a joint ANSI/ISO (International
>>Standards Organization) committee.  For procedural reasons separate
>>ISO/WG21 and ANSI/X3J16 formal votes are taken, but for practical
>>purposes it is one committee and there will be one and only one C++
>>standard, and it will be an international standard.
>>
>
>OK...Let me rephrase the question. Is the list of *all* of the
>members of the joint ANSI/ISO (International Standards Organization)
>committee listed here on a regular basis?

 Sigh. This is not how it works. WG21 is a Working Group
of the ISO/IEC Sub Committee 22 (SC22) which deals with all
programming languages. (and, somehow, POSIX as well :-)

 International voting is conducted by SC22, the voters
are the Participating "P" and Ordinary "O" member NATIONS of
SC22 represented by their recognized National Bodies (NBs).

 The National Body of the USA is ANSI.

 Votes at committee meetings require substantial
agreement of Heads of Delegations (HOD) of delegations
of Technical Experts (TEs) authorised by National Bodies
to participate in the Working Group WG21, and also
a majority of members of X3J16, which is the working group
of the ANSI National Body dealing with C++.

 This "dual" voting is a convention of the committee,
occasionally X3J16 and WG21 vote differently. The HOD of USA
on WG21 is Tom Plum, and he usually votes in accordance with
the X3J16 vote which preceeds the WG21 vote. The formal
votes occur on Friday.

 In order to avoid a split vote, and direct work at
meetings a "straw" vote is held on the Wednesday. By convention
this is a vote of the "committee as a whole" in which everyone
votes -- each X3J16 member and each member of a National
Delegation have a single vote.  X3J16 has both "people" and
"corporations" as members, and they do NOT have to be US citizens.

 If such a combined staw vote does not indicate a substantial
majority, then often a straw poll of X3J16 and WG21 is conducted
separately, and the information usually leads to further
work to reach a consensus in BOTH bodies, or withdrawal of the
motion.

 To actually vote at meetings, a company or person of X3J16
has to have attended a previous meeting: WG21 members do not have to.
Also, X3J16 members are not allowed to abstain.

 So: who is a "member" of the committee? In the case
of WG21, there are NO members of the committee. There are
only delegations, and they exist only during the period
of the actual meeting. In between, I may say I'm a member
of WG21, what it actually means is I'm permitted to
use the committe reflector and receive the 6 times a year
committee mailing.

 Each pre-meeting mailing contains full membership
lists with voting rights indicated. Actual attendances
may be different.

 These lists are certainly available to committee
members.

> if(answer.isNo){
>  newsgroup.post("...on an irregular basis?");
> }
> else{
>  newsgroup.post("When was the last time it was posted?");
> }

 I would guess the member list of X3J16 is available from ANSI.

>
>>>Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
>>>membership in various standards committees? This might help
>>>us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
>>>of the standards activity.

 X3J16 does not have citizenship requirements, except for
special "administrative" voting proceedures (called meetings of the
US Tag).

 Other national bodies will have their own rules.

 In particular, I am an Australian Citizen and
I was Head of Delegation of both Australia and New Zealand at
two meetings. Dag Bruk was Head of Delegation of Sweden
and of Denmark at at least one meeting.

>Is the Internet used for meetings?

 No. Face to face meetings are needed to get certain
kinds of things done. For me that is an expensive restriction.
But face to face really is necessary.

 The committee has a members only email reflector system.

--
        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 <3khvv0$ool@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>
>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>
>>It might help people reading this newsgroup to create a filter to
>>raise the priority of reading articles from those people on the
>>committee. It would also help to keep everyone up to date on any
>>changes made on the makeup of the committee.
>
>If you are not a member of the committee and not interested in investing
>the unpaid time and effort to work on the standardization effort,
>why is it so important to know the membership details of the committee?

"Because"....(see my other posting)...

>The membership changes over time, and the participation effort by
>the volunteers changes as well. You can't tell from the membership
>list who is doing what anyway.
>

The Internet is a high-speed vehicle that is perfect for reporting these
changes. Let the people on the net be the judge of how to interpret the
data...

>>I had my first opportunity to speak face to face today with a person
>>that accidentally claimed to be on the ANSII committee for C++.
>>When I asked this person what was happening they could not tell me.
>>This person said that only 2 or 3 people are doing the work.
>
>That is nonsense, and an insult to the dozens of people who have
>individually invested hundreds or even thousands of hours of their
>personal time in the standards work.
>
I will pass that on to this individual...


>>If we had a regular posting here, it might help to determine whether
>>the committee has 3 members, 30 members, or 300 members.
>
>There are somewhere around 250 "members" of the committee. Some of
>these are "observing" members, whose participation is minimal or
>even confined to receiving paper mailings and email. About 65-80
>people attend any given meeting,

65-80 people? WOW!
How do you organize it?
Who runs the meeting?
Are the meetings video taped?
Are the meetings tape recorded?
Is there a written transcript from the meeting?


>fewer when the meeting is not in
>North America.

Why is that?
On the Internet, latitude and longitude do not matter much.


>Of the attendees, about 45 attend regularly enough
>to have a vote. (You must attend 2 of every 3 consecutive meetings
>to be able to vote, and one organization has only one vote, even if
>several members attend meetings.) Of the voting members, most make
>a significant contribution to the actual standards effort; some
>make little contribution. Some of the non-voting members make
>significant contributions. No one is interesting in keeping score
>of who does what, and no membership list will give you a clue.
>
I am not looking for clues, just a list.

NAME         COMPANY/ORGANIZATION          COUNTRY        CITIZENSHIP
----         --------------------          -------        -----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------

>>This may not be mandantory for USENET but I would suppose that ANSI
>>would want to have accurate records regarding who is responsible for
>>the work.
>
>ANSI does have the membership list, and collects the annual dues from
>all members. Literally anyone is allowed to join the ANSI committee,
>no matter what their citzenship or place of work or residence.
>

Interesting...who keeps track of the working activity?


>>Will the ANSI and ISO standards be different?
>
>No. The ISO WG21 and ANSI X3J16 C++ committees work together and will
>create one single standard which will both an ANSI and an ISO standard.

That is good news...one world standard...


--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the OuterNet

In article <3k866u$drs@News1.mcs.com>, Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) writes:
>
>Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
>ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?

It isn't just ANSI.  It is a joint ANSI/ISO (International
Standards Organization) committee.  For procedural reasons separate
ISO/WG21 and ANSI/X3J16 formal votes are taken, but for practical
purposes it is one committee and there will be one and only one C++
standard, and it will be an international standard.

>Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
>membership in various standards committees? This might help
>us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
>of the standards activity.

Standard C++ will not have "dialects", except for the
distinction between free-standing and hosted environments.

>Are there going to be different standards for different areas?

No.

>For example, the PAL TV standard is different in Europe and the U.S.
>Also, ISDN is different in various areas. Will C++ be regional?

No.

>Is the ANSI committee focusing on the American version or an
>international version?

International.  Again, it is an ANSI/ISO committee.  Even within
the ANSI portion, the international procedures are in effect.

>Any help in this regard would help. Also, does anyone have the
>e-mail addess for ANSI handy. Is it hard to join this standards
>committee.

It is easy to join as an observer or as a voting member.  Voting
members must attend meetings, and that gets quite expensive.

>When is the next meeting?

July, in California.  Typically about 80 people attend, about 50
having voting rights.  The others are alternates and people who
haven't attended enough meetings to have voting rights.

>What is the agenda?

The detailed agenda is complex, but since the big decisions are now
complete, the main thrust will be responding to public and national
body comments.  Lots of editorial work remains.

-- Beman    (beman@dawes.win.net)

Is the list of the American members (read: U.S. Citizens) of the
ANSI standards committee on C++ listed here on a regular basis?

Should people that post here state both their citizenship and
membership in various standards committees? This might help
us to sort out the various dialects of C++ that seem to be part
of the standards activity.

Are there going to be different standards for different areas?
For example, the PAL TV standard is different in Europe and the U.S.
Also, ISDN is different in various areas. Will C++ be regional?

Is the ANSI committee focusing on the American version or an
international version?

Any help in this regard would help. Also, does anyone have the
e-mail addess for ANSI handy. Is it hard to join this standards
committee.

When is the next meeting?
What is the agenda?


--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the
OuterNet