Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <9006041404.AA15867@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 4 Jun 90 07:59:20 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Mitch Bradley <wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

> This [de-specifying controversial words, making up new non-controversial
> names] strikes me as the only sane thing to do when faced with opposing
> factions that won't give in.  I'm curious as to how long it took the
> committee to hit upon this solution?

It took nearly the whole 3 years before the committee "bit the bullet"
and admitted that there was just no way either side was going to give in.
Time was starting to run out, and everybody was sick to death of the same
old arguments.  In this frame of mind, the compromise solutions were seen
as the only way out.

To my mind, the "compromise" is only a matter of spelling.  The technical
impact is completely positive; words exist (perhaps with suboptimal spelling,
but I can live with that) with the semantics favored by each of the two
sides (and both sides have good reasons for wanting what they want).

Mitch