mccalpin@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) (10/19/89)
Didn't someone from X3J3 say in August that they were almost ready to send out the responses to the last public review? The current review period is almost over, and I think it would be a terrible mistake if the responses were not out in time.... On second thought, maybe the committee is doing this on purpose, so that the reviews will get in people's hands right at the time they need to be thinking about making the second round of public comments. On a related topic: It seems to me that most folks out there are sick to death of the interminable standards process, and that most non-implementors have dropped out of following the debates. I would guess that there will be far fewer comments on this draft from users than on the last draft because people feel that nothing is ever going to get done. Am I alone in this feeling? -- John D. McCalpin - mccalpin@masig1.ocean.fsu.edu mccalpin@scri1.scri.fsu.edu mccalpin@delocn.udel.edu
mcdonald@aries.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (10/19/89)
In article <MCCALPIN.89Oct18153308@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu> mccalpin@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes: >Didn't someone from X3J3 say in August that they were almost ready to >send out the responses to the last public review? >The current review period is almost over, and I think it would be a >terrible mistake if the responses were not out in time.... > >On second thought, maybe the committee is doing this on purpose, so >that the reviews will get in people's hands right at the time they >need to be thinking about making the second round of public comments. > The rules require that replies from the previous public comment be sent out in time to be used in this one. I don't know how much time they expect us to have, but they better hurry. If they don't make it in time, something awful will happen to the timing of the approval process. Doug MCDonald
hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (10/20/89)
X3J3 also believed that the responses from one public comment peiod had to be sent out before beginning a new one. We were told by people higher up in the standards process that this was not the case, that it was necessary only to approve the responses to be sent before the new draft went out. Nevertheless, X3J3 put in the effort to approve the responses at the same meeting that the new draft was forwarded to X3 (last May). At that time, X3J3 believed that those responses would be sent out before its next meeting in July (and thus, before the start of the second public comment period). Unfortunately, the process of compiling responses written by 5 different subcommittees into response letters has proved more difficult than anticipated. (In internal committee correspondence, I noticed that the SF earthquake is now contributing to the problems.) The last I heard, all but a handful of the letters are expected to be mailed Monday, October 23. The remainder will presumably be mailed as soon as the problems in their production are resolved.
bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) (10/24/89)
In article <MCCALPIN.89Oct18153308@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu> mccalpin@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes: >Didn't someone from X3J3 say in August that they were almost ready to >send out the responses to the last public review? >The current review period is almost over, and I think it would be a >terrible mistake if the responses were not out in time.... > Yeah, well, I was wrong. The word now is that we'll get the lion's share out this week (by the 27th). However, there are quite a few letters with irregularities in the responses which will take a bit longer. It's really quite incredible that we're getting anything out at all; the letters and their responses compose a stack of paper about eight inches thick (double- sided, I believe). People have been going through the stack reviewing the responses and most of them seem okay. >On second thought, maybe the committee is doing this on purpose, so >that the reviews will get in people's hands right at the time they >need to be thinking about making the second round of public comments. > Well, the second public review was somewhat hurried to comply with WG-5 schedule constraints. We are really on the wire with this. >On a related topic: > >It seems to me that most folks out there are sick to death of the >interminable standards process, and that most non-implementors have >dropped out of following the debates. I would guess that there will >be far fewer comments on this draft from users than on the last draft >because people feel that nothing is ever going to get done. Am I >alone in this feeling? No doubt you are correct. This is traditionally true with languages standards. Third reviews, if there are any, never seem to garner more than about a dozen letters. I've always claimed that, if desired, standards committees can always just stubborn their way through public reviews, because people get tired of putting a lot of effort in and not seeing anything happen. >John D. McCalpin - mccalpin@masig1.ocean.fsu.edu Bob Allison