[comp.lang.fortran] Review document

brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) (08/27/89)

In article <649@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu>, bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) writes:
> 
> Although I couldn't afford to plunk down $50 for a copy of the draft
> 
Remember that the document out for the second public review also is available
from Lahey Computer Systems for $23 (the cost of printing and mailing),
P. O. Box 6091, Incline Village, NV 89450-6091, 702/831-2500,
702/831-8123 (fax).

Of course, X3J3 would appreciate receiving your comments (and all others).
-- 
Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.           brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
               2002 Quail Run Dr. NE
               Albuquerque, NM 87122
               505/275-0800

psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) (08/28/89)

In article <307@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:
>In article <649@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu>, bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) writes:
>> 
>> Although I couldn't afford to plunk down $50 for a copy of the draft
>> 
>Remember that the document out for the second public review also is available
>from Lahey Computer Systems for $23 (the cost of printing and mailing),
>P. O. Box 6091, Incline Village, NV 89450-6091, 702/831-2500,
>702/831-8123 (fax).
>
>Of course, X3J3 would appreciate receiving your comments (and all others).

First, let me say that I have never supported the "deal" that CBEMA made
with Global Engineering for them to distribute standards.  I would certainly
have rather had it published in SIGPLAN, etc.   But... 

In a conversation last week with CBEMA headquarters, Jean-Paul Emard, who
is the Director of the X3 Secretariat, told me that CBMEA could not
stop the distribution by Lahey Computer Systems, but that the proposed
standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
of the proposed standard.  

He also told me that any appeal to ANSI based on non-official copies of
the standard would be rejected without further consideration.

Tom Lahey is attempting to provide copies of the proposed standard to a
wider group of people who don't have the $50 to spend.   I am not saying
ANYTHING against Tom's efforts.   I just wanted to post this so you would
all know CBEMA's position on the Lahey version of the proposed 8x standard.


Presley Smith 
Manager: Development Software
CONVEX Computer Corporation              Reply to: psmith@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway,                  Phone:    214-497-4545
P.O. Box 833851                          FAX:      214-497-4500
Richardson,   TX  75083-3851     

bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) (08/28/89)

In article <1599@convex.UUCP> psmith@convex.com  (Presley Smith) writes:
>... the proposed
>standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
>of the proposed standard.  

Regardless of the fact that CBMEA does not sanction the Lahey
distribution, is the Lahey document *identical* to the CBMEA document?

If not, how do they differ and why?
If they are, then what does this (below) mean?

>He also told me that any appeal to ANSI based on non-official copies of
>the standard would be rejected without further consideration.

Just trying to keep everything straight...
-- 
David Bernholdt			bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project		bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 6365

brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) (08/28/89)

In article <1599@convex.UUCP>, psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes:
> 
> He also told me that any appeal to ANSI based on non-official copies of
> the standard would be rejected without further consideration.
> 
It's going to be a little hard to tell whether the comments are based on
the "official" copy or on Lahey's copies, because they are identical!
-- 
Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.           brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
               2002 Quail Run Dr. NE
               Albuquerque, NM 87122
               505/275-0800

brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) (08/28/89)

In article <1599@convex.UUCP>, psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes:
> 
> In a conversation last week with CBEMA headquarters, Jean-Paul Emard, who
> is the Director of the X3 Secretariat, told me that CBMEA could not
> stop the distribution by Lahey Computer Systems, but that the proposed
> standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
> of the proposed standard.  
> 
Incidentally, the function of ANSI should not be to try to figure out how
they can stop the distribution, but to figure out ways to _encourage_
distribution of the document.  I hope that Presley and I agree on that.
-- 
Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.           brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
               2002 Quail Run Dr. NE
               Albuquerque, NM 87122
               505/275-0800

psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) (08/28/89)

In article <310@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:
>In article <1599@convex.UUCP>, psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) writes:
>> 
^  In a conversation last week with CBEMA headquarters, Jean-Paul Emard, who
^  is the Director of the X3 Secretariat, told me that CBMEA could not
^  stop the distribution by Lahey Computer Systems, but that the proposed
^  standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
^  of the proposed standard.  
 
^^   Incidentally, the function of ANSI should not be to try to figure out how
^^   they can stop the distribution, but to figure out ways to _encourage_
^^   distribution of the document.  I hope that Presley and I agree on that.

   I certainly agree.  I would like to see it published in SIGPLAN and 
   other places for the widest distribution possible.   I only report what
   I've been told...

psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) (08/28/89)

In article <650@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu> bernhold@orange19 (David E. Bernholdt) writes:
>In article <1599@convex.UUCP> psmith@convex.com  (Presley Smith) writes:
>>... the proposed
>>standard that Lahey is distributing is NOT considered an "official copy"
>>of the proposed standard.  
>
>Regardless of the fact that CBMEA does not sanction the Lahey
>distribution, is the Lahey document *identical* to the CBMEA document?

I believe that they are the same document.  I know that it is Tom
Lahey's intent that they are the same.   I was only reporting on the 
conversation with the CBEMA people.  

Tom Lahey is a member of the X3J3 committee and has gotten his 
document through those channels.  

You would expect CBEMA to not be happy with this situation.  They have
a deal with Global and Global is making money on selling standards. 
Tom Lahey is selling them at his cost.  He's not trying to make a 
profit.  

>
>If not, how do they differ and why?
>If they are, then what does this (below) mean?
>
>>He also told me that any appeal to ANSI based on non-official copies of
>>the standard would be rejected without further consideration.
>
 
Since the document is not copyrighted, CBEMA cannot stop Lahey from 
distributing them.   The "worry" at CBEMA is that the document is NOT
the same for some reason.  Since the Lahey document is NOT and "official"
copy because it is not obtained by the reader from Global, if someone 
was to make an appeal to ANSI based on the document coming from Tom
Lahey, CBEMA could reject that appeal due to the fact the person was
using a non-official document.

This has NOTHING to do with Public Review.  Public review comments will
be received and processed by CBEMA:    

  1.  Any company that has a member on X3J3 has the right to publish copies
      of the proposed standard within their company.

  2.  You do NOT have to purchase or even read the proposed standard in
      order to comment on it.

The only "threat" CBEMA has is the appeals process.  This is where someone
does not like the response that X3J3 has to their comments or where there
is some procedural violation in the standards process.  In that case,
CBEMA is saying that you DON'T have a case if this appeal is made based
on the Lahey document.    

Unless there is some difference (and I know of NO differences, and I know
that Tom Lahey will do his best to insure there are NO differences...)
CBEMA would never know where the document had come from.

The original mail was intended as a NEWS report of what was said by
CBEMA.  

I hope this tells the whole story.   No matter which document you obtain...
obtain one, read it, and send your opinions to CBEMA at the address
that has been published on the net several times:

	   X3 Secretariat/CBEMA
	   311 First Street,  NW
	   Suite 500
	   Washington,  DC  20001-2178

ALL comments MUST be at that address by noon on November 24th.  Any comment
received after that time will be considered an UNREGISTERED comment and is 
not considered as an official part of the public review (although the 
committee may considered it and reply to it...)

FYI.  Does this clear up any confusion?


>Just trying to keep everything straight...
>-- 
>David Bernholdt			bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
>Quantum Theory Project		bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
>University of Florida
>Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 6365