Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!sdcc6!ir230
From: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Panel Idea
Keywords: BASIS ANSI Panel
Message-ID: <11270@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 90 07:38:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 74


Dennis Raffer writes:
$  > How many users are aware of what has been decided?
$ 
$ I agree with you there John, but I don't see many alternatives. Thanks to
$ Mitch and others who have been keeping us aware of what is going on by
$ discussing it openly.

Earlier in the year, Len Morgenstern suggested, at the end of a GEnie 
Roundtable, that someONE be invited to discuss the ideas behind the 
Standards. I wrote to Leonard saying that I thought the idea of 
inviting ONE person to present a controversial issue -- in the format 
of a GEnie Roundtable would be a disaster. [For those of you who have 
not attended, the Roundtable is wonderful as a chance for you to query 
one of the Forth luminaries -- but it has a very small bandwidth since 
most of us cannot type at secretarial speed.]  Dennis Raffer, who is
in charge of GEnie got involved in the discusssion -- and he agreed 
that a Roundtable on this issue would be a bad idea.  The following
alternative came up, but was never implemented.

A Panel Discussion would take place on the NET. It would include some 
members of the ANSI Team representing various points of view, people 
representing various segments of the user community, old hands with a 
good historical sense, etc. A moderator would be appointed. Each 
member of the panel would send the moderator a statement expressing 
his views about the Standards (free form approach) or his answers to 
specific questions (structured approach).  The Moderator would prepare 
a thematically organized presentation of these statements [Here's what 
X says about why we need a new Standard, and here's what Y says ...] 
The result would be posted. On the next round, each panel member could 
respond to statements made in the previous round by other panel 
members -- and, at some point, the moderator could receive questions 
from the audience which the panel would be asked to discuss. Of course 
everyone would be free to post their reactions (just as they are now).  
This would provide some focus -- and also some first hand information. 
[I think the Forth community deserves to hear the minimalist position 
from a minimalist -- not from kitchen-sinkists who present their 
interpretation of the minimalist position. We also deserve to hear 
from those who are forcing some parts of the proposed Standards to 
retreat from Forth-83 and return to Forth-79. All of the information 
we have received on the Net has been from people who are opponents of 
this and attribute it to sheer perversity.] 

People on the Standards team should realize that their work goes down 
the drain if their work is not accepted [and I mean *accepted* not 
just formal ratification]. Participation in an effort to inform the 
user community and receive input from users should be regarded as a 
necessary part of the project. Forth really doesn't need a third 
Standard that only part of the Forth community accepts!  By working 
together so closely for so long, members of the Team may have 
developed a kind of comraderie and mutual understanding. People who 
are part of this kind of experience often forget that they are just a 
handful and that their good feeling about their work may not be shared 
by the unwashed and ignorant masses outside their door. [On the other 
hand, I should say this to fellow members of the unwashed and ignorant 
mass: remember that when representatives of major oil companies gather 
behind closed doors, they really could be trying to figure out ways to 
reduce the cost of gas at the pump.] 

People in the user community should realize that a change in Standards
will have an impact on them whether they realize it or not. It will
be important to them that the new Standards are very good. And, 
whether they think they are affected or not, their expertise in 
identifying parts of the proposal which are weak or flaky will be a
great help to everyone.

If the panel discussion idea appeals to you, or you have something 
that would work better, write to Dennis Raffer. [If you can't
mail to him, send your comments to me and I will forward them.]

                                                  John J Wavrik 
             jjwavrik@ucsd.edu                    Dept of Math  C-012 
                                                  Univ of Calif - San Diego 
                                                  La Jolla, CA  92093