NICE-ESG-Libs Digest Wed, 15 Feb 95 Volume 1 : Issue 185
Today's Topics:
Discussion Required
The role of the technical committees
NICE Eiffel Standards Group -- Library Committee Mailing List
To post to list:
NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
To send mail to the Chairman of the committee:
NICE-ESG-Libs-chair@atlanta.twr.com
Administrative matters (sign up, unsubscribe, mail problems, etc):
NICE-ESG-Libs-request@atlanta.twr.com
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 10:40:46 +1100 (EST)
From: cmingins@apple.fcit.monash.edu.au (Christine Mingins)
Subject: Discussion Required
To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com (NICE-esg-libs )
There are now two items on our agenda for discussion:
1. Changes to Comparable and Hashable.
To date we have had no discussion on the Tower proposals.
Please let me know if you want the deadline for discussion
extended beyond 20 February.
2. Bertrand's proposal that NICE adopt PELKS as vintage '95
standard and any future amendments being for vintage '96.
As Chair of the Library Committee and the NICE Board,
I would like to hear what all the Library Committee members
think about this, before any formal proposals are put to the
Board.
Regards,
Christine
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 18:45:43 EST
From: tynor (Steve Tynor)
Subject: The role of the technical committees
To: nice-esg-libs, nice-discuss
Fellow Eiffel enthusiasts,
Before this goes too far, I feel the need to provide some perspective.
Bertrand's sudden call for the immediate adoption of PELKS-6 by the
board is unacceptable. To wit:
- It bypasses the function of the Library Committee whose charter has
been to to review the evolving kernel standard, and when satisfied
with it, to present it to the Board.
- It violates the conditions upon which the committee based its
decision to accept ISE's proposal as the baseline. The explicit
agreement was that the proposal was only a baseline and that the
committee would have the right and responsibility to review and
modify it.
- PELKS-6 is the version of the proposal _before_ the committee was
given a chance to perform its review process. The not-so-recently
completed vote on class GENERAL is reflected in PELKS-_7_. (I won't
belabor the point that PELKS-6 itself contains numerous differences
from the version originally adopted as the baseline for the
committee's work). So insisting on PELKS-6 is a step backward.
- Bertrand points to the fact that the committee is not making timely
progress. I don't think anyone will disagree (I think Roger Browne's
use of the word "glacial" was apt :-)) The solution is not to scrap
the last shred of democratic process. The solution is to fix the
process. For example, in the most recent vote (GENERAL, PLATFORM,
ANY), the votes were not tallied for more than 3.5 weeks after the
due date. The call for proposals for the next set of classes was not
for 4 weeks after that!
The above are rather technical objections. The real reason why this
proposal is so dangerous have more to do with real compatibility and
what it means to _have_ a standard.
- A "standard" is no standard if only one party adopts it. Tower has
serious technical objections to certain aspects of the current
proposal. If it is adopted without review, we will not be able to
adopt it in good conscience. I can't speak for other vendors, but I
suspect that what will happen is that ISE will support it (it is,
after all, not all that different than their current kernel) and the
rest of the vendor community will not. What is gained? How exactly is
this different from the status quo? The idea behind the standard was
to improve compatibility between implementations. If the "standard"
is a standard in name only, it is a sham and I fail to see how it
serves the interest of the Eiffel community. Even for marketing
purposes, such a standard will quickly be exposed for what it is.
- What is the incentive to participate in the technical committees if
decisions end up being made by fiat? What is the incentive to remain
a member of NICE if decisions are made arbitrarily and without due
process? How do you expect people to make good faith efforts to
compromise when those compromises are abandoned at the drop of a hat?
So, what is the solution?
- Resolve to make an effort to keep up the pace of activity in the
committees. This will require that the chairs call for proposals and
votes in a timely manner, and that members exhibit better
responsiveness as well. In doing this, let us be sure that we don't
railroad a decision just for the sake of reaching a quick decision,
but that we give each issue its day in court.
- Back when Bertrand and the Gustave group were asked to get together
to draft a compromise proposal, we offered to set aside some time (a
few days or a week) to meet face to face. The offer was declined.
Perhaps it is now time to re-offer. Perhaps it is time for the
committee members to meet face to face and complete the review of
PELKS. Since this will involve some travel expense for at least some
of the participants, I suggest that NICE consider using some of the
money it didn't spend on marketing last year to pay for such a
meeting. If releasing a "standard" is as critically important for PR
as Bertrand claims, then this will be money well spent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve Tynor Internet: Steve.Tynor@atlanta.twr.com
Tower Technology UUCP: twratl!Steve.Tynor
WWW: http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/Tower/
|
