In article <1994Mar3.140528.1733@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> ...
>> > >  To a large number of people around the world, compliance
>> > > with an American Standard is not as important as compliance with
>> > > an International one. ...
>
>> >  ... some of us ... feel that ISO and the international process are ...
>> > more trouble than anything could be worth.  ... the machinery ... has been
>> > unhelpful, ungrateful, ill-mannered, greedy, excessively parochial, and
>> > engaged in endless inflexible interference with and gratuitous offense
>> > against those whom it is supposed to help.
> ...
>> Although the result of the joint ANSI/ISO process (an International Standard)
>> is valuable to John and to others, I have found the process itself, as it is
>> currently implemented, to be all of those bad things I wrote above, and more.
>> I know that at least a few on the ANSI side of the committee agree with me,
>> and I suspect that many would.
>
>Let me be as clear as I know how:
>
>I attach no blame whatsoever to any member of x3j16/WG21.  So far as I have
>been able to see, the individuals involved have worked closely and hard as
>a team, identifying issues, deciding those issues, and negotiating
>disagreements (both technical and `national interest', e.g. character set)
>with patience, consideration, and the utmost good faith, and generally
>acting like all-around Good Guys.

>
>The rules under which they are forced to work

 Lets be clear Mark: no one is "forced" to work on the Standard.
We're all volunteers. The processes were designed for that. They were
designed for Standardising existing practice where there was already
consensus but a lack of formal specification and formal agreement.

 I agree that the processes are both inappropriate for
C++, for which much of the work being done is research and
pushing new frontiers, and for Standardisation in general,
due to changes in the World Economy: its now more than ever
necessary to get consensus BEFORE engaging in commercial
projects, and the ISO processes at least are not really designed
to cope with that.

>--including schedules that are
>treated with all the seriousness of international treaty and voting systems
>that are more suited to the needs of diplomacy than to the needs of a
>difficult technical standard,

 You aint seen nothing yet <grin>. So far the machinery
has left us alone because we have NOT elevated the Working Paper
to a Committee Draft. For this reason I advocate a schedule slip.
If we dont take the time to finish our work before we enter
the formal process, we'll get everything we deserve: formal
replies to defects, negotiations on satisfaction of comments
on NO votes.

 Whether this is as it should be is not the issue,
its the way it is. Lets get it right before we tie up our
processes with formalities we dont need.

>including rules on the structure and format of
>the standard itself that are not suitable for a document that will run to
>hundreds of tightly interrelated pages,

 How can YOU say that the format is not suitable?
Are you an expert in Standard design?

The format was DESIGNED to cope with huge complex Standards,
as far as committee's can design things. It was approved
by international consensus.

The decisions on the format are there to support cross Standard
interdependencies, standardised reference format, etc.
Probably stuff I dont know about. I'm not an expert.

>including procedures which invite
>anyone doing a `data processing' standard to require a written response to
>enquiries on issues no matter how far from the purpose the the work at hand--
>severely tax the ability of people to work together towards a common purpose.

 ISO does not require that. That seems to be an ANSI requirement.

>I think that those who are doing so--and especially those who are acting as
>single-point `national representatives' under the ISO rules--deserve great
>credit for a difficult job done well under very trying circumstances.

 As the Head of Delegation for two countries, I can tell
you the biggest problem I have is much simpler than you think.

 Money. I dont have enough.
>
>I applaud x3j16/WG21 and its members.  I do not applaud the agencies that
>that created the forum.  Once the `international process' was started, both
>ANSI and ISO have done their share to make life unbearable for the people
>who volunteer their time, effort, and money to work on the Standard that
>ISO will call its own.

 I dont understand. I've not had any such problem. On the
contrary, I find the pre-existance of rules and guidelines a great
advantage: it saves us inventing our own, probably poor, standards
for the Standard. Indeed, in our FAILURE to utilise existing
Standards we have created much extra work for ourselves.

 In particular, you seem to support the ARM style layout
which I find quite unsuitable for a Standard. Its the very organisation
of the ARM that often makes C++ seem much more complex than it
really is.

 But perhaps I miss something, I dont know exactly
what you are refering to when you refer to ANSI and ISO
making life unbearable. (Unless its Standards Australia being
too broke to may me to work on the committee full time :-)



--
        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

Sorry to have to do this--I hope I'm usually more clear when I write.

In article <1994Mar1.033930.16433@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> In article <1994Feb27.025801.6469@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> > In article <CLo8pG.1rL@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:

 ...
> > >  To a large number of people around the world, compliance
> > > with an American Standard is not as important as compliance with
> > > an International one. ...

> >  ... some of us ... feel that ISO and the international process are ...
> > more trouble than anything could be worth.  ... the machinery ... has been
> > unhelpful, ungrateful, ill-mannered, greedy, excessively parochial, and
> > engaged in endless inflexible interference with and gratuitous offense
> > against those whom it is supposed to help.
 ...
> Although the result of the joint ANSI/ISO process (an International Standard)
> is valuable to John and to others, I have found the process itself, as it is
> currently implemented, to be all of those bad things I wrote above, and more.
> I know that at least a few on the ANSI side of the committee agree with me,
> and I suspect that many would.

Let me be as clear as I know how:

I attach no blame whatsoever to any member of x3j16/WG21.  So far as I have
been able to see, the individuals involved have worked closely and hard as
a team, identifying issues, deciding those issues, and negotiating
disagreements (both technical and `national interest', e.g. character set)
with patience, consideration, and the utmost good faith, and generally
acting like all-around Good Guys.

The rules under which they are forced to work--including schedules that are
treated with all the seriousness of international treaty and voting systems
that are more suited to the needs of diplomacy than to the needs of a
difficult technical standard, including rules on the structure and format of
the standard itself that are not suitable for a document that will run to
hundreds of tightly interrelated pages, including procedures which invite
anyone doing a `data processing' standard to require a written response to
enquiries on issues no matter how far from the purpose the the work at hand--
severely tax the ability of people to work together towards a common purpose.
I think that those who are doing so--and especially those who are acting as
single-point `national representatives' under the ISO rules--deserve great
credit for a difficult job done well under very trying circumstances.

I applaud x3j16/WG21 and its members.  I do not applaud the agencies that
that created the forum.  Once the `international process' was started, both
ANSI and ISO have done their share to make life unbearable for the people
who volunteer their time, effort, and money to work on the Standard that
ISO will call its own.
--
 (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 <1994Feb27.025801.6469@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> In article <CLo8pG.1rL@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
> > >ANSI C++ says 13.4 :

> >  ANSI C++ doesnt say anything. There is no ANSI Standard.
> > Nor is there an ISO Standard for C++. ...

> >  To a large number of people around the world, compliance
> > with an American Standard is not as important as compliance with
> > an International one. ...

> With all due respect to John Max Skaller ...
 ...
>  ... some of us ... feel that ISO and the international process are ...
> more trouble than anything could be worth.  ... the machinery ... has been
> unhelpful, ungrateful, ill-mannered, greedy, excessively parochial, and
> engaged in endless inflexible interference with and gratuitous offense
> against those whom it is supposed to help.

I received some mail which suggests that I was less than clear.

I have never seen and never heard of John Max Skaller being anything but
helpful, considerate, thoughtful, generous with his time and effort, and
concerned with the general C++ good.  The few technical disagreements we have
had have been respectful and cordial.  I am very glad of John's participation
in and his contribution to the standards effort, and I believe that most of
the joint ANSI/ISO committee would agree with me in this.

Although the result of the joint ANSI/ISO process (an International Standard)
is valuable to John and to others, I have found the process itself, as it is
currently implemented, to be all of those bad things I wrote above, and more.
I know that at least a few on the ANSI side of the committee agree with me,
and I suspect that many would.
--
 (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 <CLo8pG.1rL@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:

> >ANSI C++ says 13.4 :

>  ANSI C++ doesnt say anything. There is no ANSI Standard.
> Nor is there an ISO Standard for C++. ...

>  To a large number of people around the world, compliance
> with an American Standard is not as important as compliance with
> an International one. As a person who is working towards the
> formation of that document [as a member of] the ISO body WG21, it would
> be nice to see the documents refered to as the working papers of the
> joint ANSI/ISO committee. That properly attributes to ANSI a special
> significance while not ignoring that the international document is a
> key to international understanding, cooperation, and sharing, and will
> help to disabuse international readers of this newsgroup of the feeling
> that Americans are sometimes a wee bit too parochial and uncaring of the
> existence of others that share our small Earth.

With all due respect to John Max Skaller, whom I have never met except
across email, but whom I value as a colleague and generous, helpful,
reasonable and dedicated member of the joint ANSI/ISO committee ...

 ... some of us have come to feel that ISO and the international process
are the source of more trouble than anything could be worth.  From where
this Yank sits, the bureaucratic machinery involved has been unhelpful,
ungrateful, ill-mannered, greedy, excessively parochial, and engaged in
endless inflexible interference with and gratuitous offense against those
whom it is supposed to help.

I won't fault John if he disagrees.  Having an ISO stamp will make it
easier for those outside the US to agree to use the Standard.  But the
standards bodies involved with the international process have behaved
like presumptuous, know-it-all busybodies.

I don't mean to say that this is how it _should_ be, or how it _must_ be,
but just how it _is_ under the current collections of standards bodies.
It's enough that more than a few people regret that x3j16 decided to go the
International route.
--
 (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.)

>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 1994 02:58:01 GMT, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us said:

>> ..., the bureaucratic machinery involved has been unhelpful,
>> ungrateful, ill-mannered, greedy, excessively parochial, and engaged in
>> endless inflexible interference with and gratuitous offense against those
>> whom it is supposed to help..... the
>> standards bodies involved with the international process have behaved
>> like presumptuous, know-it-all busybodies.

Nah, I thought you loved us!

Dag Bruck
Head of Swedish delegation to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 WG21 (C++)
(Member of ANSI X3J16, too.)