Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Message-ID: <2282.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 27 Jan 91 22:36:09 GMT Organization: (n.) to be organized. But that's not important right now. Lines: 41 Category 10, Topic 2 Message 290 Sun Jan 27, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 14:59 EST I have to agree with David Petty's observation that the TC has avoided both objectivity and consistency in its decision criteria. As part of the residue of the Detroit meeting, I have a list of arguments which (when I offered them) were rejected as insufficient, but which were later used without dispute by others on the TSC. And -- perhaps the issue which has most damned the TC in my eyes -- when I proposed a set of quantifiable, objective decision criteria to the TC, they were rejected: not because I had proposed the wrong criteria (which I offered to change), but because the TC OBJECTED TO HAVING TO MEET ANY CRITERIA AT ALL. - Brad P.S. Elizabeth Rather has offered some deceptive statistics re. the Southern Ontario proposals at the Detroit meeting. Of the 43 proposals we submitted, 23 failed, 6 which passed were "post" proposals, to correct typos and such, 7 which passed were editorial changes to clarify definitions, 2 (of mine) which passed were editorial changes to delete language which I considered pompous, misleading, or deceptive. Of the 5 substantive proposals which were passed: 1 was passed as submitted, 1 was amended by the TSC, 1 was amended so much it no longer resembled the original proposal, 2 were replaced with new proposals by the TSC, which essentially preserved the original intent. In contrast, 21 of the 23 failed proposals were substantive. (There's that 20% success rate.) It would seem that outside proposals fail because they raise issues, period. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp