dsill@relay-nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (12/12/88)
From: Dave Sill <dsill@relay-nswc.navy.mil>
First, let me say that I respect Shane McCarron, value his opinions on
standards-related issues, and appreciate USENIX's efforts to promote
standards awareness.
But...
The latest Standards Update was far too editorial. In fact, it seems
to have become more of a soapbox for Mr. McCarron than an attempt to
make the masses aware of recent progress in standardization. In
particular, Part 3, NIST (NBS) Federal Information Processing
Standards contained about one and a half paragraphs reporting what
NIST has done recently and expects to be doing in the future, but four
and a half paragraphs of opinion on the worthiness of their approach.
Apparently Mr. McCarron has trouble making the distinction between
journalism and editorialization. The Standards Update should be just
that: an update of the progress of standardization efforts. There are
other, more appropriate, forums, such as this mailing list/newsgroup,
for Mr McCarron's opinions.
This problem has already been brought to his attention. In Part 8,
POSIX 1003.7 Update, he writes:
"When I last wrote about this group, I was very critical of
its charter and the possibility of it succeeding. I think
it only fair to relate that a number of people wrote me and
said that I was too judgemental, and that I should take a
wait and see attitude. Bowing to the will of the people, I
am not going to draw any conclusions about the working group
at this time. After the January meeting, when they have
formalized the areas they are going to address, I will
relate all of that information and you can decide if what
they are doing is a good thing. In the interim, if you want
more information, or would like to share your opinions with
me, please drop me a line."
Exactly, Mr. McCarron, relate the information and let the reader form
his own opinion.
=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.
"Money is congealed energy."
-- Joe Campbell
Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 49jsq@usenix.org (John S. Quarterman) (12/15/88)
From: John S. Quarterman <jsq@usenix.org> There seems to be a misunderstanding about the purpose of the Standards Updates that Shane McCarron writes. As the USENIX Institutional Representative, who commissioned them, let me attempt to clarify that purpose. These reports are part of the involvement of the USENIX Association in standards activities, which was explained in some detail in the article which I posted immediately after the most recent set of update articles, on volunteers for the USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee. There is another document that is specifically about the kind of information desired for these reports, and I have just posted it, as well. Those are comp.std.unix Volume 15, Numbers 45 and 46. However, to address the specific common misconception: Exactly, Mr. McCarron, relate the information and let the reader form his own opinion. The facts are adequately related in the minutes of the various standards committee meetings, and these reports are not intended to duplicate those documents, which anyone can subscribe to directly from IEEE and the other standards bodies. What they *are* intended to do is to provide context that does *not* appear in the minutes, such as relations with other committees, plans (whether actual, tentative, or rejected), the various sides of controversial issues, and the potential effects of all these. Brief summaries of what was accomplished at the most recent meetings and schedules of future meetings are also part of this context, but are far from all that the reports were commissioned to report. The basic goal of the reports is to provide information to the USENIX membership and to the general public about standards and the standards process, so that more of those who should be involved will become involved. This kind of contextual information involves opinions, either Shane's or someone else's. The reports are supposed to be editorials, not just journalism. Readers may not agree with opinions in them. I encourage those who disagree to submit articles pointing out what they think is incorrect about the reports (anything from factual errors to being too judgemental to long-windedness), and expressing their own opinions. Even those who agree might want to post clarifications, elaborations, or additions. In addition, chairs or secretaries (or members) of committees are free to post rebuttals, or, better, to compose and post their own reports (whether strictly factual or including opinions) about their committees. The chair of IEEE 1003.2 has done this (Volume 15, Number 28). I encourage others to do so. John S. Quarterman, USENIX Institutional Representative to IEEE 1003. [ These reports were commissioned specifically for comp.std.unix/std-unix and for ;login:, the Newsletter of the USENIX Association. As moderator of that newsgroup and mailing list, I once again encourage other postings. Readers are also welcome to contact me, Shane, or other posters directly. -mod ] Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 50
dsill@relay-nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (01/05/89)
From: Dave Sill <dsill@relay-nswc.navy.mil> >From: John S. Quarterman <jsq@usenix.org> >The facts are adequately related in the minutes of the various >standards committee meetings, and these reports are not intended to >duplicate those documents, which anyone can subscribe to directly from >IEEE and the other standards bodies. I must confess that I've assumed all along that the purpose of the Updates was to summarize the various minutes so Usenix members and readers of this group wouldn't have to subscribe to them directly, as well as including any other relevant standards-related information. >The basic goal of the reports is to provide information to >the USENIX membership and to the general public about standards and the >standards process, so that more of those who should be involved will >become involved. I totally agree that this is the goal. >[...] This kind of contextual information involves opinions, either >Shane's or someone else's. The reports are supposed to be >editorials, not just journalism. Yes, opinions are important; but not just Shane's. What I want to read about is the opinions of the movers and shakers in standardization and the prevailing opinions of the user community. I don't think we can expect Shane's opinions to be an accurate representation of such a large and diverse group. Also, I disagree that reporting on controversial subjects and opinions either implies or requires editorialization. These Updates are not just stating common or representative opinions, they are taking sides and promoting the opinion of one individual. Let me reiterate a point I made at the opening of my previous posting. I respect Shane McCarron and value his opinions. I just wish he'd express them under separate cover. Let comp.std.unix/std-unix be the forum for personal opinion and the Standards Updates be an objective report of the developments and issues. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "Without the wind, the grass does not move. Without software, hardware is useless." -- The Tao of Programming Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 56
jsq@usenix.org (John S. Quarterman) (01/05/89)
From: John S. Quarterman <jsq@usenix.org> >I must confess that I've assumed all along that the purpose of the >Updates was to summarize the various minutes so Usenix members and >readers of this group wouldn't have to subscribe to them directly, as >well as including any other relevant standards-related information. ... >Also, I disagree that reporting on controversial subjects and > opinions either implies or requires editorialization. Minutes of IEEE 1003 meetings tend to be quite long, and there are many of them. Reducing them to a quickly legible size would involve massive selection. That selection itself would involve opinions of an editor. Such opinions would be implicit, but they would be there, even in this apparently most neutral approach. Because such opinions would be implicit, there would be danger of their being taken as fact by people who did not read the full minutes. Simple summaries of minutes would have another disadvantage: the minutes tend to be very laconic and often do not record larger issues such as all the arguments on both sides of a discussion (some of which may have appeared in previous minutes, in the rationale, or may simply not have been recorded), or the context of a discussion or decision in a larger controversy, or some of the implications of a decision for other standards or external groups. This kind of information is not widely available, and it is one of the main things that is wanted in these reports. The USENIX board has wanted to have this kind of information available since at least 1984, and a mechanism has only recently been found. >Yes, opinions are important; but not just Shane's. What I want to >read about is the opinions of the movers and shakers in >standardization and the prevailing opinions of the user community. Other such opinions have been explicitly solicited in previous articles. Such opininions can be either submitted directly to the moderator of comp.std.unix or the editor of ;login: for posting, or they can given to Shane for inclusion in the reports he writes. Volunteers on the watchdog committee are also explicitly asked to provide opinions of their own. >I don't think we can expect Shane's opinions to be an accurate >representation of such a large and diverse group. I know of no one's opinions that can be so regarded. >These Updates are not just stating common or representative opinions, >they are taking sides and promoting the opinion of one individual. One person's common or representative opinion is another person's controversial issue. However, the reports are *intended* to take sides. People who take other sides are, once again, encouraged to speak up with their own discussions of the issues. >Let comp.std.unix/std-unix be the forum for personal opinion and the >Standards Updates be an objective report of the developments and issues. Thank you for your input. Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 58
domo@uk.co.sphinx (Dominic Dunlop) (01/11/89)
From: domo@uk.co.sphinx (Dominic Dunlop) I'm all in favour of Usenix' effort to summarise progress and by-play in a number of standaridisation forums. It has been commented firstly that the summaries show the effect of editorial decisions, and secondly that editorial input -- whether explicit or implicit -- is a necessary part of the production of any summary -- particularly a useful summary. I can't find any fault in either of those statements. The only way to know exactly what is going on in any one forum is to participate in its activities yourself. If the activities of a particular group are vitally important to you, I urge you to participate. You'll find yourself being roped into the work of the group, and that's all to the good -- Parkinson's Law applies in committee work as in other aspects of life. You'll also get to have some interesting meals with interesting people in interesting places. (The same applies to drinks, if that appeals to you.) What's more, participate now, and you may get to write reports for Usenix, so involving yourself in the editorial process! In my experience, the most difficult aspect of participation is getting somebody to pick up the tab -- although some people with more devotion than I have been known to pay out of their own pockets in order to attend! The trouble with participating in a group is that you get to know only about the activities of that group, and possibly those peripheral areas of other group which ahve an effect your own work. There simply are not enough hours in the day (or synapses in the brain, particularly after experiencing some of those drinks) for any one person to participate even in all the activities taking place under the Posix umbrella, never mind getting involved with other bodies such as ANSI, EWOS (who?), ISO, JIS... (and anyway, the expense would be horrendous). As a result, in order to get anything like a global picture of what's going on, it's essential to rely on summaries. To make a large and pontifical generalisation, it seems to me that one of the main ways in which things get done in this world is through decisions made on the basis of a knowledge of summaries, rather than through an intimate knowledge of the details of a particular aspect of a particular situation. Politicians are briefed on many topics by experts; managers act on the basis of reports from their juniors; people send money in response to pictures of a disaster on TV. All of these sources of information involve an editorial element, and it's that which makes them more, rather than less, useful. More power to Usenix' elbow for its much-needed initiative in applying this concept to standards activities. (Another reason that things get done is that driven people just go ahead and do them anyway...) -- Dominic Dunlop domo@sphinx.co.uk domo@riddle.uucp Volume-Number: Volume 15, Number 60