henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/17/90)
In article <56632@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: >... I'd like to have comp.std.c++ be the forum >for "public input" on the c++ standard. This is the spirit in which >I am writing to comp.std.c++ There is a way to get public input into the standard, but it is *not* to post something here. It is to write it down, on paper, and send it to X3J16. Yes, standards committees read proposals from Joe Random User. Yes, they pay attention. Yes, they even sometimes adopt them. It helps a whole lot if you have implemented and used your proposal; there is no substitute for actual experience with language changes. It also helps a whole lot if it addresses some important need rather than being a cosmetic change, given that X3J16's job is to standardize an *existing* language, not invent a new one. Regardless, it should be detailed and specific and should nail down exactly what you want changed and what you want it changed to: do not expect someone on the committee to spend his time fleshing out your proposal for you! They spend enough time working on their own. It is very likely that members of X3J16 read this newsgroup, but they will probably consider it to be informal discussion, not a source of formal proposals. Translation, they can ignore anything they disagree with. If you are seriously concerned, even about a single issue, it is not that difficult or expensive to join a standards committee. ANSI committees are *required* to be open to all. They tend to consist mostly of compiler implementors, since it is very much in their interests to put substantial money and manpower into participation, but anybody can join. Best is to actually attend meetings, but you can join as an "observer" and simply get all the paperwork. There will typically be a fee, perhaps $100/yr, to cover reproduction and mailing costs. If you want to actually do justice to belonging, there will also be a *lot* of time involved, because at regular intervals the postman delivers several pounds of paper for you to read and comment on. People who haven't tried it have no concept of how tedious this is. -- It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) (08/20/90)
In article <1990Aug17.165749.3270@zoo.toronto.edu| henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |In article <56632@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: |>... I'd like to have comp.std.c++ be the forum |>for "public input" on the c++ standard. This is the spirit in which |>I am writing to comp.std.c++ | |There is a way to get public input into the standard, but it is *not* to |post something here. It is to write it down, on paper, and send it to |X3J16. Yes, standards committees read proposals from Joe Random User. |Yes, they pay attention. Yes, they even sometimes adopt them. .... |It is very likely that members of X3J16 read this newsgroup, but they will |probably consider it to be informal discussion, not a source of formal |proposals. Translation, they can ignore anything they disagree with. | |If you are seriously concerned, even about a single issue, it is not that |difficult or expensive to join a standards committee. ANSI committees |are *required* to be open to all. They tend to consist mostly of compiler |implementors, since it is very much in their interests to put substantial |money and manpower into participation, but anybody can join. Best is to |actually attend meetings, but you can join as an "observer" and simply |get all the paperwork. There will typically be a fee, perhaps $100/yr, |to cover reproduction and mailing costs. If you want to actually do |justice to belonging, there will also be a *lot* of time involved, because |at regular intervals the postman delivers several pounds of paper for you |to read and comment on. People who haven't tried it have no concept of |how tedious this is. Okay, in the odd chance there are any real-world C++ users [as opposed to compiler writers :-] out there willing to subject themselves to a standard- ization effort, does anyone have information on how real people get involved with the standardization effort? Contact addresses? ACM or IEEE magazine? etc? ....the rest of us will just continue our howling into the void....
domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) (08/22/90)
In article <56728@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim Adcock) writes: > Okay, in the odd chance there are any real-world C++ users [as opposed to > compiler writers :-] out there willing to subject themselves to a standard- > ization effort, does anyone have information on how real people get involved > with the standardization effort? Contact addresses? > OK. Here's something that was put in front of us at the most recent ISO POSIX meeting, where we received a report on progress towards a standard for C++ by the ANSI X3J16 committee. Note that, although ANSI is a U.S. body, participation is open to anybody, anywhere. Call For Participation C++ Standards Process We invite individual members of the international community to participate in the C++ standardization process. Users and vendors of the C++ programming language have formed a committee to accelerate acceptance of the language by beginning the standardization process. The proposed work will cover the C++ language, as well as the associated libraries and environment features. At the committee's March 1990 meeting, working groups were established for the Core Language, chaired by Andrew Koenig, and for New Language Features, chaired by Bjarne Stroustrup. Bjarne Stroustrup's revised paper on Exception Handling was distributed for consideration. The production of a standard suitable for the international community is among the goals adopted by the committee. Participation may involve reviewing documents, submitting proposals, and attending meetings. Membership is open to citizens of the world. For futher information, contact Dmitry Lenkov at Postal Address HP California Language Lab 19447 Pruneridge Avenue, MS:47LE Cupertino, CA 95104 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 408 447-5279 Facsimile: +1 408 447-4924 Electronic mail: dmitry%hpda@hplabs.hp.com Dmitry is X3J16 chair, so I guess he's the first point of contact for all enquiries. If I'm wrong, and if any working group member wants to post a correction, feel free. I'll cancel this posting if I see any such correction. For those interested in turning up at the next X3J16 meeting (its third), it's to be in the silicon valley area, California from 12-16 November. (No doubt the precise venue is now fixed, but I don't have that information.) Anybody can show up as an observer at any meeting; if you want to get to vote, and to get mailings and such, you have to pay a membership fee of (give or take a substantial margin) $600 per year. (Again, correct me if I'm wide of the mark, somebody). Me? I don't even know C++, and I'm not participating. Hell, I've got too much committee work to do to learn a new language! Doing harm, just by existing... -- Dominic Dunlop
johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug22.092444.24786@tsa.co.uk> domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) writes: [in reference to the ANSI X3J13 C++ standardization committee] >if you want to get to vote, and to get mailings and such, you have to >pay a membership fee of (give or take a substantial margin) $600 per >year. (Again, correct me if I'm wide of the mark, somebody). Membership costs $250 per year, for both voters ("principal members") and observing members. There are some constraints on the principals, namely, one cannot miss more than 1 meeting out of any three consecutive meetings, and principal members are expected to "take home" work assignments. Oh yes, and there is a limit of one principal member per organization represented, with one "alternate" allowed. You *are* allowed to represent yourself. Observing members can miss as many sessions as they want to, and have access to all the same information that the voting members have. But they can't vote... also, observing members get the same mailings and so on. Hope this helps! -- John T. Baldwin | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu Search Technology, Inc. | | "... I had an infinite loop, My opinions; not my employers'. | but it was only for a little while..."
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/28/90)
In article <177@srchtec.UUCP>, johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin) writes: > Oh yes, and there is a limit of one principal member per organization > represented, with one "alternate" allowed. You *are* allowed to represent > yourself. An organization may have any number of alternates, however only the principal may vote -- unless the principal is absent, in which case only one of the alternates may vote. You may indeed represent yourself, but not if you are an employee of a company with an official representative. For example, Jonathan Shopiro is the AT&T representative. That means that Bjarne Stroustrup may not vote at the ANSI meetings, because he is an employee of AT&T. He cannot even represent himself at the meetings. Of course he can speak all he wants to, and sometimes people even listen! :-) And because Bjarne and I are both alternates (which is how I know the number is not restricted to one), if Jonathan is absent, we get to decide which of us will vote that day. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@europa.att.com
johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin) (08/30/90)
In article <11247@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >You may indeed represent yourself, but not if you are an employee of a company >with an official representative. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear in my original posting. This is indeed the case. What I meant to show: if your employer isn't sending a representative and you have a strong enough reason to fund your own direct participation, you may do so. Hmmm. What would the committee (or its parent, X3) do, if, for instance, Fred Flakikode of XYZ Corporation were to become a principal member (representing himself), and then two months later, XYZ Corp. applied for the priveledge of sending a company representative? Would there be any difference depending on if XYZ was a large organization or not? (i.e. Department "A" is responsible for trying to send a representative, while Fred works for Department "W" on the opposite coast.) Just plain old-fashioned curiosity at work here. -- John T. Baldwin | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu Search Technology, Inc. | | "... I had an infinite loop, My opinions; not my employers'. | but it was only for a little while..."
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (09/01/90)
johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin) writes: > ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >>You may indeed represent yourself, but not if you are an employee of a company >>with an official representative. >I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear in my original posting. This is >indeed the case. What I meant to show: if your employer isn't sending a >representative and you have a strong enough reason to fund your own direct >participation, you may do so. This may well occur, but, as a datapoint, the cases I have seen (in X3H3) of "representing oneself" were not folks whose company would not fund their participation, but folks working as indpendent consultants/contractors, who were part of no incorporated entity, but had a burning interest in the work of the committee. By adding "representing oneself" to the rules, ANSI allowed these (highly motivated, they paid out of their own pockets) people to add to the committee's productivity. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>