Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!algor2.algorists.com!jeffrey
From: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Vendor representatives on committee
Message-ID: <1989Nov20.124013.28617@algor2.algorists.com>
Date: 20 Nov 89 12:40:13 GMT
References: <11134@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <15217@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1643@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1989Nov17.205004.19236@cs.rochester.edu> <1653@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11645@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler)
Organization: Algorists, Inc.
Lines: 43

A number of postings has suggested that there is something unethical
or immoral about advocating the particular interests of a specific
vendor on the ANSI C committee, as opposed to the general public
interest.

Actually, if no one on X3J11 had put forward the views of the major
vendors, X3J11 could not have performed its consensus building
function.  And if you are not going to build consensus, why bother
having a committee?  If no one had advocated the selfish narrow views
of special interests, the work of X3J11 could not have been done.
This is why many of the representatives were invited and why they were
sent.

And of course, the special interests are paying for the salary of
their representives, and their expenses.  If after that, their point
of view went unspoken, wouldn't that be a real betrayal?

In general, a lot of people have problems with the ethics of advocacy
of selfish interests, as when a lawyer defends a despicable client.
And entire countries have reorganized themselves so that there is
nothing but the public interest (China, the Soviet Union, etc.) with
the idea that this would create a better world.  It may seem a paradox
that one-sided advocacy of special interests (even those contrary to
more general interests) promotes the general interest, but that is the
way it works.

My support of the right of special interests to representation, and
defense of the ethicality of such representation, does not mean I have
to like the point of view being advocated, especially when the
advocacy is successful.  I caught a fair number of flames by
suggesting that special interests were behind a dpANS feature I don't
like.  One poster accused me of libeling the representatives when I
suggested that they has actually represented the people they were
requested and paid to represent.  An E-mailer was even more pointed.

The misunderstanding on this issue seems to be almost universal.
Clearing it up will help us understand a lot more than how language
standards are produced.
-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090