Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!mozart!psmith From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: FIRST public review - response fina Message-ID: <4172@convex.UUCP> Date: 21 Dec 89 16:40:07 GMT References: <14164@lambda.UUCP> <6800003@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4161@convex.UUCP> Sender: news@convex.UUCP Reply-To: psmith@convex.COM (Presley Smith) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 46 In article khb@chiba.kbierman@sun.com (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) writes: > >In article <4161@convex.UUCP> psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes: > >..... rules discussion... > > was STARTED not after the public review was 1/2 over or finished. This > issue is not dead. It will have to be addressed by SMC and the BSR because > of the problems that have occurred. > >If memory serves, at the Long Island meeting, Bill R. as the X3 rep >was specifically asked questions about this procedure. He asserted >that this was legit. I believe that the chair followed up with X3. If >there were rules violations it isn't because there was a lack of >effort. 1. I did NOT accuse X3J3 of "lack of effort." In fact, X3J3 did a LOT of extra effort to get these public review comments out in a timely manner. Part of the problem was pressure from the international community and the differences in the rules. ANSI, SMC, and BSR is going to have to come to grips with those issues. X3J3 was caught between the proverbal "rock and hard place." X3J3 did what they had to and tried to do it right. 2. Bill Reinhuls was representing SPARC and X3 at the Long Island meeting. It has been the practice with other committees also to put some parallelism in the processing to shorten the time. X3 and ANSI are certainly interested in timely completions of standards efforts (although some international groups don't believe that...). Officially, the committee cannot forward the standard to X3 for further processing until the previous letters are completed and the people have either protested or withdrawn. Instead, the standard was forwarded to X3 so the public review would be started sooner with the understanding that these letters from the first public review would be in the hands of the reviewers by the time the standard was available again for review. That's not what happened. And that set of issues will have to be reviewed by the standards management groups. I don't have any insight as to what will happen... maybe nothing. Also, Bill Reinhuls or any INDIVIDUAL on X3 or SPARC does not have the right or the authority to bend or break the rules. What Bill said was strictly legit by previous practice that had been approved. What has happened in fact is questionable at best.