Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!brainerd From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: FIRST public review - response finally Message-ID: <589@unmvax.unm.edu> Date: 15 Dec 89 01:58:04 GMT References: <587@unmvax.unm.edu> <14172@lambda.UUCP> Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque Lines: 59 In article <14172@lambda.UUCP>, jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > From article <587@unmvax.unm.edu>, by brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd): > > [...] 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). > > I didn't make such a claim. I don't like the action taken by the > committee on certain issues - that much is true. However, many of the > committees responses claimed that the actions I don't like were in ^^^^^^^^^ > response to my comments. Clearly they either didn't understand my > comment or they deliberately misrepresented my wishes - in either case, > my comments were not correctly addressed. > That is exactly what I said: the responses were not reasonable in some cases. That still does not mean the committee did not understand what was requested when it acted on it (but, of course, that is also possible, see below). As I said before, it seems to me unreasonable for anyone to create reasonable responses to all the comments received. As to timliness, I would like to mention two facts. You may draw whatever conclusions you want from them. a) Creating the responses was one heck of a lot of work. b) The person in charge of doing them has been a strong opponent of adopting the new standard. > Please note that the general tone of my first public review was > positive. Although I focused on the features I thought weren't as well > designed as they might have been, I generally supported the first draft > standard. The second draft standard is a different matter though. > I believe that in most respects where the first differs from the second, > the first proposal was much superior. My commentary on the second > proposal was completely negative. Your first comments were probably interpreted as being unfavorable, so contributed ammunition to those who insisted on making all the changes! Many eople tend to write about stuff they want changed and not many even take the trouble to say that they like lots of it. Those of us who went through this before know that, but those opposed to the whole thing made up lots of statistics to convince lots of people that support for the whole thing was not there. We agree here that many changes were for the worse. Except for getting the description right, it was probably even better five years ago. In any case, preliminary news is that there were a lot more favorable comments on the second review than on the first, enough to form a clear majority of those responding (also, there were fewer responding). Specific numbers will vary depending on the person doing the interpretation, but I (and others, I am sure) will pass on more info as it becomes available. -- Walt Brainerd Unicomp, Inc. brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 2002 Quail Run Dr. NE Albuquerque, NM 87122 505/275-0800