ahby@bungia.mn.org (Shane P. McCarron) (04/23/89)
From: Shane P. McCarron <ahby@bungia.mn.org>
An update on UNIX|= Standards Activities - Part 2
IEEE 1003.0
February 20, 1989
Shane P. McCarron, NAPS International
1003.0 - POSIX Guide
The following report is printed exactly as it was sent to me
by our contact in 1003.0. I find his unedited observations
to be very enlightening.
This past Jan 89 meeting for IEEE 1003.0 group is the fourth
since the group's inception. The first took place in March
1988. In summary, it has been a bit of a roller coaster
ride. We jumped into the fray back in March with high
expectations and with the strong intentions of having taken
bold steps by now. Upon coming up to our one year mark, it
is clear to me that we have been (and still are)
experiencing a rite of passage. Specifically, we have gone
through the growing pains that every volunteer organization
does when attempting to take bold strides, only to stumble
on such things as consensus, priorities, level of detail,
and parameters.
It also clear to me that this was inevitable. Given the
state of affairs within this whole realm of open systems,
i.e. contention and conflict, and given the goal of our
attempting to address this realm (to which no accredited
body has addressed itself to date), conflict and a bit of
thrashing around were, in retrospect, to be expected. The
group is reaching the point where a significant amount of
synergy is developing. I would define that as everyone
knowing what to expect from those who are the most vocal AND
each person knowing when to limit and/or categorize his/her
discussion.
We struggled with procedural issues in order to ensure that
anarchy did not reign while concurrently ensuring that
creativity was not stifled. We are beginning to reach this
goal.
We experienced the classic problem of everyone during a
meeting setting high and lofty goals only for things to fall
through the cracks when they returned to their jobs and saw
other pressing priorities awaiting them. Goals set during
this past meeting were more pragmatic and better thought
out. In addition, the group's leadership is taking a more
active role to ensure that friendly reminders and follow ups
occur. (I thought I heard someone say that their legs might
be broken if action items were missed but I was outside
getting a cup of tea at the time.)
One very key and contentious issue which was discussed and
tabled was that of changing our PAR to say that we will
develop a standard instead of a guide. This kind of change
has far-reaching ramifications and, in my strong opinion, is
unwise and unneeded. Some felt it was necessary to put some
"teeth" into our end-product by making it a standard. So
much attention is being paid to our effort now that a basic
list of priority standards would garner significant
consumption. And we are certainly proceeding further than
that.
Overall, the group is coming together and a second draft
version is in the works. (Draft 1 was, for the most part, an
outline). The goal for our April meeting is to have a draft
that the group feels is mature enough to begin invoking the
formal proposal process for future changes. We'll have to
wait and see what these next few months yield.
The USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee contact for 1003.0
is Kevin Lewis. He can be reached at:
Kevin Lewis
DEC
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 645
Washington, DC 20004
klewis@gucci.dec.com
+1 (202) 383-5633
Volume-Number: Volume 16, Number 32