gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/02/89)
Just in case you were planning to attend the Salt Lake City X3J11 meeting in September, be advised that it has been cancelled (according to e-mail I just received), due to not being able to start the interpretations phase as planned (in turn, due to delay in approval of the proposed standard resulting from the appeal process initiated by Mr. Hansberry). The New York City meeting is still scheduled for March. DISCLAIMER: This is NOT an official X3J11 announcement, and you should verify this information before taking irreversible steps based on it. If you're on the X3J11 electronic mailing list, you should receive the announcement soon if you haven't already.
" Maynard) (08/02/89)
In article <10646@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >[...] due to delay in approval >of the proposed standard resulting from the appeal process initiated >by Mr. Hansberry [...] What's this? I haven't heard about it. Someone have enough problems with the proposal as it wound up to appeal? What's his objection? Enquiring minds want to know... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- internet: jay@splut.conmicro.com | "He's T*d, Jim."-Richard "Bones" Sexton
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/04/89)
In article <2802@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: -In article <10646@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: ->[...] due to delay in approval of the proposed standard resulting from ->the appeal process initiated by Mr. Hansberry [...] -What's this? I haven't heard about it. Someone have enough problems with -the proposal as it wound up to appeal? What's his objection? Enquiring -minds want to know... Russell Hansberry submitted his comments on the draft proposed C standard to the X3 Secretariat during the second formal public review. Somehow, X3 managed to lose them without realizing they had done so. Consequently, it was not until after the third formal public review had been completed (resulting in the draft that was forwarded to X3 for eventual ANSI ratification) that X3J11 heard about Mr. Hansberry's comments. At the Seattle X3J11 meeting, a substantial portion of the committee met separately to consider Mr. Hansberry's comments, pretty much according to the usual public-review response process with even more care than usual; Mr. Hansberry and colleague Wayne Albin (I think), who live in the Seattle area, attended the meeting and were involved in the discussions, both to ensure that X3J11 fully understood Mr. Hansberry's concerns and in an attempt to make sure that in turn he understood the committee position on several of the issues. Three issues were identified by the review subgroup as requiring full committee discussion and decision, and these were brought before the full committee. In summary, Mr. Hansberry's issues either had already been addressed during the public review process, or they were judged not to require any changes to the current draft standard. A fourth formal response document, similar to the ones for the three formal public reviews, was prepared containing the official X3J11 positions on each issue raised by Mr. Hansberry's "lost" letter. In effect, Mr. Hansberry was accorded a fourth formal public review of his very own, using essentially the same procedures as for the other three. However, Mr. Hansberry was not happy with the response to his issues, and filed a protest with X3 requesting a full formal procedural review. As I understand it, he provided X3 with a list of about 40 items of complaint, some of them concerning technical issues and some concerning procedural issues. The rules governing the public review process apparently allow such an appeal; consequently, X3 is reballotting on the (unchanged) draft proposed standard, taking Mr. Hansberry's technical points into consideration. If X3 does not decide in this ballot that the technical issues need to be revisited by X3J11, then only the procedural matters remain open to appeal, and as I understand it, nobody except Mr. Hansberry believes they have any merit. Certainly I think that his concerns were given more than a fair hearing by X3J11, and I'm probably among the committee members most sensitive to such considerations. (As editor of the response documents, I've had to be.) Unless something unexpected occurs, I think the net outcome will simply be a delay of several months in final ANSI approval of the proposed standard. DISCLAIMER: The above represents the situation as I understand it. It is not to be taken as any sort of official X3 or X3J11 statement.