Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: ahby@uinj.UI.ORG (Shane McCarron)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Opinions on prospective standards sought
Message-ID: <130891@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 29 Apr 91 13:48:59 GMT
References: <130293@uunet.UU.NET>;
Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET
Lines: 32
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET

Submitted-by: ahby@uinj.UI.ORG (Shane McCarron)

> I feel the SEC was correct.  No reputable standards body should be party to
> any requests of this type.  This particular action by OSF and Sun(UI)
> demonstrates the lack of integrity both organizations possess as far as
> promoting their various views.  

I agree wholeheartedly, but would stress that UI had nothing to do
with the OPEN LOOK PAR, and that we actively opposed it within the
SEC.  UI did offer our User Interface work group to act as ballot
arbiters, should a ballot occur.  This was done at the request of our
member Sun Microsystems, and because we believed that a neutral
organization would do a better job of reviewing ballot objections.

> The standards process is meant to come up
> with a consensus of TECHNICAL merits for a given technolgy.  What has been
> demonstrated by these two groups through their marketing as well as the
> reports I have seen from IEEE 1204 is that they are unwilling to debate the
> TECHNICAL issues in an open forum.  Such debate would produce a standard
> which would be better than anything either can offer alone.  And isn't the
> standards process really for the benefit of the users, not the suppliers?
> This manuvering doesn't seem to further the users goals or needs, but
> simply gives the supplier another feather for the marketing cap.

Precisely!

-- 
Shane P. McCarron			ATT:	+1 201 263-8400 x232
Project Manager				UUCP:	s.mccarron@ui.org


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 50