Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Substantive vs. "Editorial" proposals
Message-ID: <9101282228.AA19814@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 91 01:59:01 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Mitch Bradley <wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

Is anybody surprised that "editorial" and "typo correction" proposals
are easier to get passed than substantive proposals?

> It would seem that outside proposals fail because they raise
> issues, period.

A whole lot of issues have been beaten to death already, and the committee
is disinclined to keep bringing up the same issues over and over and over
again.

If a proposal uncovers a new issue, or casts a previously-decided issue
in a different light, then it stands a much greater chance of getting
passed.

After 4.5 years of discussion, the percentage of "new ground" to "old
ground" is getting pretty low.

I would judge that the Toronto group, having succeeded with the intent
of 3 substantive proposals in a single meeting, is doing pretty well.
As a committee member, I didn't get any substantive proposals passed
until my third meeting.

The Boston FIG Group (specifically David Petty and Bent Schmidt-Nielson)
got the largest proposal I have ever seen passed (it was amended, and
some of its original intent was lost, but a lot of its intent survived.)

Everybody's proposals get amended.  There's no shame involved.

Mitch