[comp.lang.c] X3J11 response to comments

gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/25/88)

In article <1988Apr24.000653.2627@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>At risk of starting another flame war, if this is a problem, the function in
>question is too complex and should be split up into more manageable pieces.

FLAME ON!

You have managed to denigrate the majority of code written by
people at our installation!  How dare you aver that there are
"good" styles vs. "bad" ones??  Don't you know that any old
code that seems to work is good enough???  People like you
should keep their mouths shut, instead of casting aspersions
on my organization!!!!

FLAME OFF:-)

(I thought I would save somebody the trouble.)

Hi, Henry!  Thanks for the draft comments.  The official X3J11
response-to-second-public-review document is scheduled to be sent
to CBEMA no later than 23-May-1988, and CBEMA will then mail copies
to the correspondents.  There will be a third public review of the
draft proposed standard starting at approximately the same time.
This time, X3J11 intends to limit comments in the third round to
those pertaining to changes made to the proposed standard at the
April 1988 meeting, plus any complaints from second-round commentors
that their issues had not been adequately addressed.  It is hoped
that the contents of the final standard will be determined by the
end of the August 1988 meeting.

(This means that it is now too late to propose new inventions,
unless you can discover a major problem that somehow has been
overlooked thus far and persuade the committee that it has to
be fixed.)

Also, thanks to those who sent me electronic copies of their public
comments.  That really helped speed up the data entry aspect of the
April meeting.  There were 36 formal comment letters registered via
CBEMA (hundreds of comments), plus several that somehow missed the
registration date but that I carried to the meeting with me (that
probably did not improve my popularity within the committee).  By
working overtime, using several computers on-site for data entry,
X3J11 somehow managed to consider all comments and discuss issues
that needed it in full committee.  I wouldn't have thought it
possible..

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/28/88)

> ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA...

An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official.  I suppose it
is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

purtill@faline.bellcore.com (Mark Purtill) (04/30/88)

In article <> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA...
>
>An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
>and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official.  I suppose it
>is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...

Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) 
for the latest standard, without which they cannot make a formal complaint
that has to be listened to (or at least so I read on the net).

Moral: if X3J11/ANSI wanted broad participation in drafting the standard,
they should have made the standard available in machine readable form, say
in this group.

^.-.^ Mark Purtill
((")) purtill@math.mit.edu

shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) (05/03/88)

>
>Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) 
>for the latest standard, without which they cannot make a formal complaint
>that has to be listened to (or at least so I read on the net).
>
>Moral: if X3J11/ANSI wanted broad participation in drafting the standard,
>they should have made the standard available in machine readable form,

I agree. It's rather unreasonable to have to shell out such a large sum in
order to be able to send in a couple of comments. On the other hand (playing
devil's advocate), maybe X3J11 didn't want to wade through 30,000 comments
claiming that "noalias must go; this is non-negotiable" :-). To put it
another way, put your money where your mouth is :-) :-)

>                                                                      say
>in this group.

Now that's considerably harder. Maybe if they had a copy for anonymous FTP,
that would be OK (that way, *you*'re paying for the phone cost of transferring
it), but as a posting, it's too huge. My paper copy of the standard proposal
is 3/4" of double-sided copy...

--shankar

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/03/88)

> >An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
> >and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official.  I suppose it
> >is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...
> 
> Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) 
> for the latest standard...

If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends'
pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that
they aren't that desperately concerned.  For some reason I suspect that X3J11
would be more interested in hearing from someone who was willing to live on
soup and sandwiches for a couple of weeks because he really cared about C
and was willing to make some sacrifices to be sure his voice was heard.
People who actually *can't* afford $50 do have my sympathy; people who just
can't be bothered commenting unless it's free don't.

(Actually I think it was more like $75, but the principle stands.)

(P.S. U of T did not pay for my copy of the draft.)
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (05/03/88)

In article <1988Apr27.194653.1970@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA...
> 
> An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
> and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official.  I suppose it
> is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...

two things:  I think the terms of getting and commenting to the ANSI spec
make it difficult for most people; and I don't believe that presenting
objections here in comp.lang.c constitutes "whining".  I'm glad that
somebody (Doug, et al) is paying attention to the discussions here.
And I hope that the whiners do *not* keep quiet.

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 
Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069    Home: 603 424 8129
uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM  (...decvax!elrond!zinn!mem   or   ...sii!zinn!mem)
BIX: mmallett

mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (05/03/88)

From article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends'
> pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that
> they aren't that desperately concerned.

I'm almost afraid to say this --- after several years of reading the
the net I can count on one hand the number of times Henry has been
wrong (and still have fingers left over) --- but I find this point of
view a little bizarre.  It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that
most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their
employers to write a response.  Is this a good criterion?  I am
grateful that a few very dedicated people, Henry among them, shelled
out $75 to inject some common sense into the debate.  But why have a
policy that discourages just such people?



-- 

Mike Coffin				mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.	{allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721			(602)621-4252

barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (05/04/88)

In article <5309@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:
>It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that
>most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their
>employers to write a response.  Is this a good criterion?

Like it or not, the ANSI standardization process assumes that the
participants are mostly corporations.  Standardization is a process by
which the members of an industry work together to improve
interoperability.

True, this means that many people who are affected by standards are
not part of the development process.  Personally, I think that
automobile standards probably affect most of us more than computer
language standards (how many people have died because K&R C didn't
have "volatile"?), yet I don't see many of you complaining because you
weren't given the opportunity to discuss how bright the third brake
light must be.

Remember, the standards committee must write an individual response to
each response letter, and this response must address every point
raised.  It is difficult enough to do this with the normal number of
responses.  It would probably be a full time job if everyone could get
a copy for free and send in comments.  Relating this to your poll tax
analogy, if a politician had to personally tell each voter why he
should be elected, the campaign would take many years.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
uunet!think!barmar

peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (05/05/88)

From my experiences with ANSI T1D1 (now T1S1), I would be very
surprised if the ANSI C spec actually costs $60. _Global Engineering
Documents_ (or whatever their name is) charges money for it - ANSI
doesn't. If you want to go to the meetings and pick up the documents
yourself, I don't think there is anything to keep you from reproducing
them and giving them away, or even selling them. (Assuming GED doesn't
have some contract preventing this.) From what I understand, the fee
charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to
every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes
pencilled in in the course of the meeting. 



				Peter Desnoyers
				peter@athena.mit.edu

davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/05/88)

In article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| > >An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
| > >and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official.  I suppose it
| > >is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...
| > 
| > Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) 
| > for the latest standard...
| 
| If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends'
| pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that
| they aren't that desperately concerned.  For some reason I suspect that X3J11

  Henry, I rarely disagree with you, but the version you can order
always seems to be out of date.  I would pay a fee for a current
version, and an upgrade fee each time, if they would put the blasted
info online so I can call a number (uucp or BBS) and get something
current.  Paying $50 for something worthless is really too costly, not
only is there no positive value, but you wind up quoting things which
are already changed/fixed. 

  If I were going to make copies, I can make copies with a copy machine
just as easily, so there is no reason to quote honesty as an argument.
To postulate unofficial versions is dubious, too, since I can retypeset
any one page now with a little effort, and make it look official.

  When I was on X3J11 the text was kept in [nt]roff format and could be
accessed as soon as it was changed. I would trade the fancy typeset,
bound, etc, old manual for a current version, even if I had to take it
nroffed to a dot matrix printer. When I stopped going to meetings I wish
I had kept observer status, just to get the mailings and stuff.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/05/88)

In article <5103@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes:
>From what I understand, the fee
>charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to
>every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes
>pencilled in in the course of the meeting. 

What in the world are you talking about?  The only person who necessarily
keeps track of every change is the Redactor, who like the rest of us is a
volunteer.  The document that Global Engineering eventually sells is just
a copy of the draft provided by the Redactor.  Certainly X3J11 does not
receive any income from the sale of documents by Global Engineering; the
cost of attending meetings, reproduction and mailing, etc. is borne by the
individual Committee members and the organizations they represent.

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/05/88)

> ... I find this point of
> view a little bizarre.  It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that
> most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their
> employers to write a response...

With the exception of the poorest students, I just don't think $75 is that
formidable a barrier if one is really determined to comment.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/05/88)

In article <10717@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Henry, I rarely disagree with you, but the version you can order
>always seems to be out of date.

Global does not distribute the internal working drafts of the proposed
Standard X3.159-198x.  What you can buy from them is the official public
review draft (and corresponding Rationale document).  That is what formal
public comments are supposed to be based on.

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/06/88)

> ... the version you can order always seems to be out of date...

Formal public-comment versions, like the one made available in February,
are required to be fully up to date.  Interim drafts are made available
only on an informal for-your-information basis, as I understand it, and
are not meant as a reference for formal comments.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (05/06/88)

In article <7835@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <5103@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes:
>>From what I understand, the fee
>>charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to
>>every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes
>>pencilled in in the course of the meeting. 
>
>What in the world are you talking about?  The only person who necessarily
>keeps track of every change is the Redactor, who like the rest of us is a
>volunteer.  The document that Global Engineering eventually sells is just
>a copy of the draft provided by the Redactor.  

Poor wording on my part. If Global wants to sell an accurate copy of a
contribution, they have to keep track of the changes made in
committee, the same way everyone else going to the meeting does. The
draft standard is a bad example, because that is compiled by the
redactor. More work is involved in keeping track of contributions than
drafts, as many contributions may be reworded in committee, and I
don't think anyone in ANSI is responsible for keeping track of the 
final versions. It's their effect on the draft that the redactor
records.

>Certainly X3J11 does not
>receive any income from the sale of documents by Global Engineering; the
>cost of attending meetings, reproduction and mailing, etc. is borne by the
>individual Committee members and the organizations they represent.

I know. I had to put up a few hundred dollars (later reimbursed by the
company) for copying one Saturday night. (flight leaving Sunday - of
course I didn't have the contributions done by Thursday for the
company to copy)

				Peter Desnoyers
				peter@athena.mit.edu

ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (05/06/88)

In article <1988May4.205251.549@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > ... I find this point of
> > view a little bizarre.  It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that
> > most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their
> > employers to write a response...
> 
> With the exception of the poorest students, I just don't think $75 is that
> formidable a barrier if one is really determined to comment.

It wasn't enough to stop me getting _one_ copy of one version of the draft, 
but it was more than enough to stop me getting a copy of all the subsequent
versions.  (I didn't become an observing member, because the late '86 draft
looked good enough for me to trust X3J11 to do a good job without me.)

kent@happym.UUCP (Kent Forschmiedt) (05/06/88)

 [Someone whose name I deleted said, referring to the dpANS for X3J11:]
> as a posting, it's too huge. My paper copy of the standard proposal
>is 3/4" of double-sided copy...

How valuable would it be to the net, compared, for example, to the
8 megabytes of postings last month in comp.binaries.ibm.pc?
-- 
--
	Kent Forschmiedt -- kent@happym.UUCP, tikal!camco!happym!kent
	Happy Man Corporation  206-282-9598

gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/07/88)

In article <932@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
-It wasn't enough to stop me getting _one_ copy of one version of the draft, 
-but it was more than enough to stop me getting a copy of all the subsequent
-versions.

There have been only two formal public review drafts so far.
A third (which we intend to be the last) should be ready in a month or so.

bakken@hrsw2.UUCP (David E. Bakken) (05/10/88)

In article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends'
> pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that
> [etc]
	They don't even have to come up with this whole amount.  I've
	looked all over the draft (and the Oct 86 version) and can't
	find a copyright on it.  So it seems one must just find someone
	who has a copy and pay for the copying costs (which might be in
	the neighborhood of $12).  I don't know why it is not
	copyrighted - perhaps ANSI likes people to be able to freely 
	reproduce its standards (and drafts thereof) but doesn't like
	to be in the document dissemenation business so it finds
	someone like Global to distribute the docs for a fee.
	--> DISCLAIMER <-- I'm not a lawyer, so consult one if you need
	to and don't blame me or my employer if you suffer liability
	because of using my statement (aren't litigious societies
	wonderful?).

> (Actually I think it was more like $75, but the principle stands.)
	I'm pretty sure its $65 that Global distributes them for.
-- 
Dave Bakken   Boeing Commercial Airplanes		(206) 277-2571
uw-beaver!apcisea!hrsw2!bakken
Disclaimer: These are my own views, not those of my employers.  Don't
let them deter you from buying the 747 you've been saving hard for.