Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix
From: domo@uk.co.sphinx (Dominic Dunlop)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: USENIX Standards Updates
Summary: Participate!  (Except that tells you only about one group)
Message-ID: <295@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 89 14:49:17 GMT
References: <261@longway.TIC.COM> <278@longway.TIC.COM> <279@longway.TIC.COM> <281@longway.TIC.COM> <282@longway.TIC.COM> <289@longway.TIC.COM> <292@longway.TIC.COM>
Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM
Reply-To: domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop)
Organization: Sphinx Ltd., Maidenhead, England
Lines: 51
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)

From: domo@uk.co.sphinx (Dominic Dunlop)

I'm all in favour of Usenix' effort to summarise progress and by-play
in a number of standaridisation forums.  It has been commented firstly that
the summaries show the effect of editorial decisions, and secondly that
editorial input -- whether explicit or implicit -- is a necessary part of
the production of any summary -- particularly a useful summary.  I can't
find any fault in either of those statements.

The only way to know exactly what is going on in any one forum is to
participate in its activities yourself.  If the activities of a particular
group are vitally important to you, I urge you to participate.  You'll find
yourself being roped into the work of the group, and that's all to the
good -- Parkinson's Law applies in committee work as in other aspects of
life.  You'll also get to have some interesting meals with interesting
people in interesting places.  (The same applies to drinks, if that appeals
to you.)  What's more, participate now, and you may get to write reports
for Usenix, so involving yourself in the editorial process!  In my
experience, the most difficult aspect of participation is getting somebody
to pick up the tab -- although some people with more devotion than I have
been known to pay out of their own pockets in order to attend!

The trouble with participating in a group is that you get to know only
about the activities of that group, and possibly those peripheral areas
of other group which ahve an effect your own work.  There simply are not
enough hours in the day (or synapses in the brain, particularly after
experiencing some of those drinks) for any one person to participate
even in all the activities taking place under the Posix umbrella, never
mind getting involved with other bodies such as ANSI, EWOS (who?), ISO,
JIS...  (and anyway, the expense would be horrendous).

As a result, in order to get anything like a global picture of what's going
on, it's essential to rely on summaries.  To make a large and pontifical
generalisation, it seems to me that one of the main ways in which things
get done in this world is through decisions made on the basis of a
knowledge of summaries, rather than through an intimate knowledge of the 
details of a particular aspect of a particular situation.  Politicians are
briefed on many topics by experts; managers act on the basis of reports
from their juniors; people send money in response to pictures of a disaster
on TV.  All of these sources of information involve an editorial element,
and it's that which makes them more, rather than less, useful.  More power
to Usenix' elbow for its much-needed initiative in applying this concept to
standards activities.

(Another reason that things get done is that driven people just go ahead
and do them anyway...)
-- 
Dominic Dunlop
domo@sphinx.co.uk  domo@riddle.uucp

Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 60