Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Review document
Message-ID: <1607@convex.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 89 14:53:22 GMT
References: <649@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu> <307@unmvax.unm.edu> <1599@convex.UUCP> <650@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu>
Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@mozart.UUCP (Presley Smith)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 82

In article <650@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu> bernhold@orange19 (David E. Bernholdt) writes:
>In article <1599@convex.UUCP> psmith@convex.com  (Presley Smith) writes:
>>... the proposed
>>standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
>>of the proposed standard.  
>
>Regardless of the fact that CBMEA does not sanction the Lahey
>distribution, is the Lahey document *identical* to the CBMEA document?

I believe that they are the same document.  I know that it is Tom
Lahey's intent that they are the same.   I was only reporting on the 
conversation with the CBEMA people.  

Tom Lahey is a member of the X3J3 committee and has gotten his 
document through those channels.  

You would expect CBEMA to not be happy with this situation.  They have
a deal with Global and Global is making money on selling standards. 
Tom Lahey is selling them at his cost.  He's not trying to make a 
profit.  

>
>If not, how do they differ and why?
>If they are, then what does this (below) mean?
>
>>He also told me that any appeal to ANSI based on non-official copies of
>>the standard would be rejected without further consideration.
>
 
Since the document is not copyrighted, CBEMA cannot stop Lahey from 
distributing them.   The "worry" at CBEMA is that the document is NOT
the same for some reason.  Since the Lahey document is NOT and "official"
copy because it is not obtained by the reader from Global, if someone 
was to make an appeal to ANSI based on the document coming from Tom
Lahey, CBEMA could reject that appeal due to the fact the person was
using a non-official document.

This has NOTHING to do with Public Review.  Public review comments will
be received and processed by CBEMA:    

  1.  Any company that has a member on X3J3 has the right to publish copies
      of the proposed standard within their company.

  2.  You do NOT have to purchase or even read the proposed standard in
      order to comment on it.

The only "threat" CBEMA has is the appeals process.  This is where someone
does not like the response that X3J3 has to their comments or where there
is some procedural violation in the standards process.  In that case,
CBEMA is saying that you DON'T have a case if this appeal is made based
on the Lahey document.    

Unless there is some difference (and I know of NO differences, and I know
that Tom Lahey will do his best to insure there are NO differences...)
CBEMA would never know where the document had come from.

The original mail was intended as a NEWS report of what was said by
CBEMA.  

I hope this tells the whole story.   No matter which document you obtain...
obtain one, read it, and send your opinions to CBEMA at the address
that has been published on the net several times:

	   X3 Secretariat/CBEMA
	   311 First Street,  NW
	   Suite 500
	   Washington,  DC  20001-2178

ALL comments MUST be at that address by noon on November 24th.  Any comment
received after that time will be considered an UNREGISTERED comment and is 
not considered as an official part of the public review (although the 
committee may considered it and reply to it...)

FYI.  Does this clear up any confusion?


>Just trying to keep everything straight...
>-- 
>David Bernholdt			bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
>Quantum Theory Project		bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
>University of Florida
>Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 6365