Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!brainerd
From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FIRST public review - response finally
Message-ID: <587@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 89 18:21:28 GMT
References: <14164@lambda.UUCP>
Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
Lines: 25

In article <14164@lambda.UUCP>, jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
> The X3J3 response to my first round public review comments
> finally arrived.  . . .
> Finally, for the most part the response did _not_ address the
> issues I raised in my first round commentary.  For example (as
> I predicted) the committee incorrectly cited my first round
> comments as support for the new POINTER facility.

There are two different issues here:  the first is whether x3j3
understood and acted in good faith on suggestions sent.  In jlg's
case, the committe understood exactly what it was doing (his organization
is represented by a very articulate member of x3j3), but simply
chose to do something different.  The second issue is whether the
response received was an accurate reflection of how x3j3 understood
the comment and acted on it.  It appears that there is some problem
here (personally I think it is ridiculous for the commmitte to have
to give a technical response to the many hundreds of comments that
were submitted), but to claim that x3j3 did not address issues raised
because you don't like the action taken or the response is not
reasonable (understandable, but not reasonable).
-- 
Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.           brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
               2002 Quail Run Dr. NE
               Albuquerque, NM 87122
               505/275-0800