wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (01/28/91)
Is anybody surprised that "editorial" and "typo correction" proposals are easier to get passed than substantive proposals? > It would seem that outside proposals fail because they raise > issues, period. A whole lot of issues have been beaten to death already, and the committee is disinclined to keep bringing up the same issues over and over and over again. If a proposal uncovers a new issue, or casts a previously-decided issue in a different light, then it stands a much greater chance of getting passed. After 4.5 years of discussion, the percentage of "new ground" to "old ground" is getting pretty low. I would judge that the Toronto group, having succeeded with the intent of 3 substantive proposals in a single meeting, is doing pretty well. As a committee member, I didn't get any substantive proposals passed until my third meeting. The Boston FIG Group (specifically David Petty and Bent Schmidt-Nielson) got the largest proposal I have ever seen passed (it was amended, and some of its original intent was lost, but a lot of its intent survived.) Everybody's proposals get amended. There's no shame involved. Mitch
dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) (01/29/91)
In article <9101282228.AA19814@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, Mitch Bradley <wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV> writes: >A whole lot of issues have been beaten to death already, and the committee >is disinclined to keep bringing up the same issues over and over and over >again. > >If a proposal uncovers a new issue, or casts a previously-decided issue >in a different light, then it stands a much greater chance of getting >passed. > >After 4.5 years of discussion, the percentage of "new ground" to "old >ground" is getting pretty low. I've said this before, but perhaps it bears repeating. The ANSI process is as political as it is technical, if not more so. The difficulty here is that those of us that have not participated have no way of knowing which issues have been beat to death (or at this point which ones haven't) and what the arguments pro/con were. It is all well and good to say "trust us, we did the right thing" or "trust us, there is no cut and dried superior alternative so we chose X" but that inspires little confidence. This is hardly a problem specific to X3J14. It seems to come with the ANSI territory. I wonder how different the standard would be if transcripts of all the meetings were made and required to be available? (rhetorical question). -Doug