Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!ucbvax!PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU!EBERBERS%yubgef51
From: EBERBERS%yubgef51@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (____ Zarko Berberski ____)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Message-ID: <9104191310.AA15836@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 19 Apr 91 06:17:05 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ____ Zarko Berberski ____ <EBERBERS%yubgef51%PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33


      This is fun - trying to explain why my statement is
incorectt, Robert Barkey actually gives a precise proof of my
statement - I just love that :-)

      Act I : statement and counter-statement

> > If something is a draft proposal it is NOT EXPECTED to be final,
> > otherwise there would be no point of having that draft and I think
> > that no one needs 500% IQ to realise that simple logical fact.
>
>This is incorrect: the term "dpANS" has a specific technical meaning.The
>dpANS is the ultimate act of an X3 Subgroup Technical Committee (TC),such as
>X3.J14.  When all goes well, the TC never sees the document again.
>

up to now everithing seems to be fine - an occasional reader may
think that Robert Barkey is write and Zarko Berberski is relly
wrong - BUT ...

      Act II : explanation

>Should the document be returned to the TC, the procedural rules change.
>Whereas before only a majority vote was required in the TC for changes to the
>document, that now becomes 2/3rds.  The first time a dpANS is out for public
>review, the public gets four months to comment on it.  After that, public
>review periods are only for two months.

and the conclusion is that - dratf proposal is not supposed to be
final (otherwise there wouldn't be the anticipated additional
rules for after-review TC work). Q.E.D.     :-)

      Zarko Berberski           EBERBERS@YUBGEF51.bitnet