Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!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: <130893@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 29 Apr 91 16:39:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: uunet.130893
Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET
Lines: 34
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)

> Submitted-by: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com (Donald Lewine)
> 
> |> 	Was the decision of the SEC wrong?
> 
> Well, the SEC took away my chance to vote NO!
> 
> Given that no POSIX standard has made it through the ballot 
> process without major changes, the thought of forcing OSF and
> AT&T to fix some of the larger crocks, has some merit.  Also,
> the thought of both draft standards going down to flaming defeat
> and generating a published list of objections seems nice.

While I agree with this sentiment, the scope of both PARs was such
that objections that would cause the interfaces to change
substantially would have been considered unresponsive!  At least,
that's how I understood it.

> Seriously, I think the SEC made the only decision possible.  I
> don't know why it took 6 hours.

Because everyone had to say something, and because some of the people who
proposed the PARs really wanted them to go through.  There was a lot
of screaming and gnashing of teeth.  Having said that, as secretary of
the SEC I can tell you that most of the debate wasn't interesting
enough to be minuted.

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


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 52