Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!convex!mozart!psmith
From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN 88
Message-ID: <683@convex.UUCP>
Date: 27 Oct 88 23:24:04 GMT
References: <669@convex.UUCP> <5826@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> <673@convex.UUCP> <5858@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com>
Sender: news@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: psmith@convex.com  (Presley Smith)
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 75

In article <5858@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> lamson@sierra.uucp (scott h lamson) writes:
>In article <673@convex.UUCP> psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes:
>
>> psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes
>>  I take some 
>>   exception to the argument that the vendors are ignoring the input from
>>   their users or that the some other group knows better than the vendors
>>   what "users" want.  The vendors are listening. 
>
>I didn't say vendors maliciously were ignoring user input or made NO
>effort to solicit user opinion.  I did say and maintain that, at least
>here in GE (and apparently elsewhere), those efforts were ineffective.
>Because of that, your comments to X3J3 should be either your personal
>opinion (just like mine are) or possibly Convex Computer Corp's
>official opinion (if they chose), but should not carry the weight that
>you are speaking for all Convex users (such as myself).  That is the
>real point I wanted to make, and I hope that's what I said.
>{now if you want to nit pick, we have only had our convex since march,
> but that isn't the point since the IBM and DEC machines have been
>here for a long time.}  
>

Each member of X3J3 is an "individual expert" unless the member declares
that the membership is organizational (Per the SD-2).  To my knowledge,
the only organizational member on X3J3 is IBM.  

I certainly do not claim to represent the CONVEX user base.  I have 
certainly talked to many in the user base at various meetings, etc.
and have collected their input on the subject.  As with any issues
of this magnitude, there are many differences of opinion.    

I'm sure that the vendor efforts to obtain the opinions of their users 
are not always effective.  My point is that I've seen lots of criticism
that the vendors are ignoring the "user" input or that some other person
or group of people is more "in tune" with the "user's" desires.   The  
users had their opportunity for input during the public comment period.
And, about 400 provided their input.   Many of the vendors have 
attempted to obtain the input from their user base also.  

>> It's up to the users
>>   to make their views known. 
>Who do you want me to talk to?  If my letter to X3J3 wasn't clear 
>enough, or if the person at Convex I should talk to can't get it, let
>me know.
>

You did exactly the right thing.  Your comment is Number 321 in the 
public review.  The X3J3 committee will consider your comments along
with the other 396 comments that were received and attempt to come
to a consensus on what changes should be made to the  proposed standard
to address the public input.  Each member of X3J3 should have a copy
of your comment and all the other comments that have been received.
Your comment is quite clear and well thought out. 

I note that in your public comment, you commented on the public review
process and the fact that "computer vendors claimed to be speaking 'for 
their users.'   I urge the committee not to accept any such nonsense from
any vendors who might make such claims." (Page 3 of your public comment.)

I totally agree with you.  I also don't want the committee to accept
such nonsense from some of the USERS on the X3J3 committee who claim
to speak for "majority" the users.  They, like the vendors, can speak only 
for themselves or for their company and not the user community as
a whole.   I don't believe that any vendor or any other user can 
accurately represent EXACTLY your views on all issues before X3J3.

>User groups like DECUS and SHARE will not get enough real fortran
>users.  Better forums would be SIAM, APS, ACS, AIAA, etc.  
>But that raises the issue of who should be publicizing the draft
>standard, X3J3 members, vendors or ANSI???

I am certainly believe that the proposed standard would have gotten
a wider review had it been published some of the various groups
that you mention.   Unfortunately, the ANSI rules did not allow
that to happen.