Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: What are the existing standards?
Message-ID: <1844.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 11 Oct 90 02:05:18 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 51

In <1842.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, GARY-S writes:
> 
>  These two [Glen Haydon, Dick Miller], like members of the TC - and Brad,
>  are respected members of the Forth community and I would be extremely
>  disheartened to discover legitimate voices were being treated in a 
>  cavalier manner. 
> 
>    I don't think any of the remarks here are being ignored or treated in
>  a trivial manner and I would hope your sarcasm doesn't prevent others 
>  from offering thoughtful opinions on how they think the future standard
>  bearer for Forth should be constructed.
>    Gary 

These comments are all based on my understanding of the ANS process,
gleaned from both the X3J11 and X3J14 efforts.  If I am wrong, I would
appreciate being corrected.  That said...

I think the real issue that hasn't been explicitly addressed here is
just how feedback should get to the TC.  As I understand it, ANSI has
very specific rules about how the TC must establish the consensus ANSI
requires before bestowing its sanction and proclaiming a standard.
Those rules don't require the TC to comb the streets and respond to
every griping malcontent that speaks ill of its efforts.  I think that
the TC has realized that an electronic presence is important.  I am
glad to see them making the BASIS available electronicly.  I am glad
to see that Dennis is forwarding ForthNet material to the committee.
What I am disheartened to hear is that significant "movers and
shakers" would rather gripe about the standards effort than submit
real input.  I've seen the ANSI forms.  They aren't that hard to fill
out.  Some people have even posted their material to the net, in
addition to sending it to the TC.  I seriously question someone who
would rather gripe than try to improve things and I can guess at
several reasons why they might do that.  However, since I do not know
the specifics of any of the cases Gary refers to, I won't comment on
them.  Instead I'll say what *my* overriding inhibitor is: I don't
know what proposals (the content, not just the title) have been
submitted to the TC and what the decisions on them were.  Lists of
proposals by title in the minutes helps me none at all, and I suspect
that they aren't supposed to.  I think it would be very helpful if as
part of the BASIS, the TC would publish the proposals, their
disposition, and a succinct account of how the reasoning that lead
to that disposition.  I would think that quoting/citing such a
document would be the ideal way to respond to inquiries such a "the TC
broke BAR," or "why do you need feature FOO?"  I would think that such
documents would pay back in saved time several times more than would
be spent to create them, especially when the BASIS evolves into a
dpANS.  On the other hand, maybe not.

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp