Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!icdoc!sappho!cdsm From: cdsm@sappho.doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: More fun with WG17 Keywords: BSI ISO changes Message-ID: <1351@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 10 Nov 89 11:42:46 GMT References: <2609@munnari.oz.au> <696@sce.carleton.ca> <2643@munnari.oz.au> Sender: cshroot@doc.ic.ac.uk Reply-To: cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) Organization: Logic Group, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK. Lines: 87 In article <2643@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes: >The internal politics of WG17 are quite irrelevant. >The point is, *I* don't get a vote. Lee Naish doesn't get a vote. Rick >Muggridge doesn't get a vote. The team at HP don't get a vote. >Virtually *all* of the people who are using Common Prolog systems (that >is, virtually all of the people who will be affected by WG17) have no >representation at all. Hold on Richard, many of the people you're talking to don't know the history of this. 1. ISO committees are formed by their representative organisations in the countries that form it. When a working group is set up all countries get the option of (a) participating (b) supporting but not participating (c) opposing the working group. When WG17 was set up, Britain, France, Germany etc. chose (a), the US chose (b) and very few countries chose (c). This seems to me a totally democratic procedure. Most countries prefer representative not participatory democracy, and that's what's happening in this case. I've argued for several years that if Americans want to influence the committee they should force ANSI to participate. Unfortunately the Americans, having been the most powerful economic force for the last 40 years, are generally offhand about democracy when it doesn't suit them. (And they are of course more interested in a Lisp standard.) > but many nations are not represented at all (there is >no New Zealand representation, for example), but it isn't REALLY "the >Swiss" or "the French" but the particular people who managed to get >themselves appointed as national representatives. yes, and the paths to that ARE open. >Let's be honest about this: democracy is rule BY the same people >who are affected. No, that is participatory democracy. When countries (such as Nicaragua) try to set up systems which include this, the Americans institute economic boycotts, support terrorists and the like. (I'm not saying you support them Richard.) >Some of us (like me) can't vote for a representative >even in principle. For those who don't know, Richard was in Scotland when the idea of a committee was first mooted. He contributed a number of valuable documents, but was in California and therefore not able to participate in British meetings when things were really moving. (No, email has not been a satisfactory substitute!) Now he is back in New Zealand. NZ is a member of ISO, but is NOT a member of JTC1 or SC22 and therefore does not vote on this. However they are able to send representatives, as far as I know. Standardisation inevitably involves travel and expense, so countries won't participate unless they feel it is in their economic interest to do so. In turn it is generally the companies which foot the bill. Have you approached the NZ standardization body, Richard? If so, what was their response? > Those of us who belong to countries which are >"represented" did not get any opportunity to pick their "representatives". This depends entirely on the country. In Britain, which was where the Prolog standardization started, meetings are open to all who wish to attend. Indeed many feel this is part of the problem. Rather than have delegates who speak for proper causes (manufacturers, universities, users etc.) decisions are taken by whoever comes along. Hence the frequent reversals of policy. Other countries have different policies. That seems acceptable to me. Top-down rule setting isn't necessarily the way to get the right result. As far as WG17 is concerned, individuals can attend meetings, though at the end of the day it is countries that vote. Anyone who wants to go, write to Roger Scowen, NPL, Teddington, Middx, UK for an invitation! >Insofar as its relations to the people it seeks to govern are concerned, >WG17 is NOT democratic, and if the members of WG17 were concerned to >protect the interests of people using Common Prolog it wouldn't need to be. Ah, this mention of Common Prolog again. Is this really what you want, Richard? While we don't have a Guy Steele to write the book, it seems to me that the "throw in every way of doing it" philosophy is something you have argued against at other times. I'll have to give it a break there. I don't write as fast as Richard! Chris Moss.