In article 4ut@news.iastate.edu, guthrie@miu.edu () writes:

>I am not an expert on the current committee, not being a member, but
>It seems to me ...
>
>Proposal: a net-published report on standarads activities after major
>meetings.
> ...
>
>... I would think we could try new ways to ...
>
>Proposal: Perhaps a moderated monthly newsletter, on proposals, and
>issues, which would also serve as a port for submissions to the committee.

It is always interesting to me how people who are unwilling or unable
to pay the costs (money, time, labor, etc) of working on the Committee
are very free with suggestions for those who *are* contributing to do yet
more unpaid work on their behalf.

(I may be unfairly categorizing guthrie here, and if so, I apologize.)

Committee members in general and I in particular enthusiastically
invite people with such ideas to join the Committee and do the extra
work which they feel is so important.
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

In article <2s59ov$4ut@news.iastate.edu> guthrie@miu.edu writes:
>
>Conclusion:
>1) Thanks to all committee members for their expertise and contributions.
>2) Can't we more effectively use networking to improve the process.

 I wish. I actually DESIRE that input,
I feel the need to track all the work being done,
not just a specialised area. I have limited funds and access,
my best access to intelligence is right here on Internet.

 Unfortunately there is strong resistance to providing
public electronic access to the Working Paper.  Of course, you can buy
a copy right now (from CEBMA).

 I joined the committee myself for exactly the reasons
you outline.
--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,      CSERVE:10236.1703
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,     Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA

In article <Cq5p4B.9p3@tempel.research.att.com>,
<ark@tempel.research.att.com> writes:
> From: ark@tempel.research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
> Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
> Subject: Re: Problem with const'ness [ Really: Standards... ]
> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
>
> In article <rfgCq3Dp3.3A2@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F.
Guilmette) writes:
>
> > What *does* concern me is a certain *appearance* of a `private club',
> > where `outsiders' and their ideas are uniformly shunned.
>
> It's not private at all: anyone can join who is willing to pay
> the membership fee (presently $600 a year, I think).
-- And expenses and time for meetings...
>  So it's more like a public club.
>
> It is true, however, that
>  2. Only voting members are permitted to make motions.
>
> Therefore,
> for a proposal by a non-member to be considered, some member has
> to be willing to take responsibility for moving it and arguing for it.
> It should not be surprising that this doesn't happen very often.
>
> If you don't like the rules, that's tough the committee didn't make them
> and is powerless to change them.
> --
>     --Andrew Koenig
>       ark@research.att.com
Editorial::

There are several interesting issues here, one is the goal of a
standardization committee, and the second is how to best achieve that
goal.
There are different models and systems to form a standard, IEEE and ANSI
are different, who/how/why is one form of standardization chosen??
E.g. why isn't C++ standardized by IEEE (like POSIX)?

I am not an expert on the current committee, not being a member, but
It seems to me that information on the standard is
somewhat restricted in access, both input and output.

1) "output";
Although there are lots of statements about "not yet a standard", etc..
it is often the case that the answer to a question is:
 "this has been changed / approved by the committee / in the new standard"
This certainly refers to some degree of finality/closure on an issue,
without any wide circulation of a proposal or request for inputs.
There IS a draft (current working draft) document, distributed to the
committee members; why not put it on the net?
One reply is that information about standards process and decisions is
printed in some commercial magazines; but I think there are better, more
accessible and dependable ways to distribute such information.

Proposal: a net-published report on standarads activities after major
meetings.

2) "Inputs":
Certainly the whole process is an iterative one, and it will iterate when
the draft standard is finalized, but the question which is of interest
here is the tradeoff of number of iterations and ability to get inputs
from a wide segment of the technical community, before features/decisions
are effectively frozen ("too late now to change that").

With the existance of the Internet, I would think we could try new ways to
involve more people in the process of defining/standardizing a new
language. The current committee seems very well qualified and effective,
but I have particiated in IEEE standards efforts in which early drafts
were widely circulated, and individual comments/proposals/objections
resolved through a series of revisions. It was a great learning and
convergence process for the participants, as well as a valuable means to
improve the final result.
[It got rather costly, and now membership fees are charged.]
I think the network could eliminate much of this cost of paper and
mailing.

The current C++ process seems less open in these aspects; and it seems
that broader information flow, and inputs would help gain technical inputs
and consensus. There are many people who have good ideas, and experience,
and who could contribute, but who do not have the membership and travel
monies, and time for meeting attendance. They would easily have network
access !

Proposal: Perhaps a moderated monthly newsletter, on proposals, and
issues, which would also serve as a port for submissions to the committee.

Conclusion:
1) Thanks to all committee members for their expertise and contributions.
2) Can't we more effectively use networking to improve the process.


 Gregory Guthrie    MIU Computer Science Department          (515)472-1125
 Internet: guthrie@miu.edu                                     FAX:  -1103