Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dwpst From: dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Substantive vs. "Editorial" proposals Message-ID: <84847@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 29 Jan 91 13:53:38 GMT References: <9101282228.AA19814@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) Organization: (n.) to be organized. But that's not important right now. Lines: 26 In article <9101282228.AA19814@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, Mitch Bradley writes: >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've said this before, but perhaps it bears repeating. The ANSI process is as political as it is technical, if not more so. The difficulty here is that those of us that have not participated have no way of knowing which issues have been beat to death (or at this point which ones haven't) and what the arguments pro/con were. It is all well and good to say "trust us, we did the right thing" or "trust us, there is no cut and dried superior alternative so we chose X" but that inspires little confidence. This is hardly a problem specific to X3J14. It seems to come with the ANSI territory. I wonder how different the standard would be if transcripts of all the meetings were made and required to be available? (rhetorical question). -Doug