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: Wed, 7 Jun 95 11:14:32 EDT From: fhart@atlanta.twr.com (C. Frederick Hart) Subject: Vote for library chair To: nice-esg-libs Tower votes for Paul Johnson as chair. NICE has managed to announce a vintage 95 kernel standard _despite_ the fact that this committee has made hardly any progress in discussing and ratifying such a standard. While Tower recognizes the desire for quick acceptance of the document and will be publicly supporting the standard, it can't be denied that the standard is the result of backroom negotiations between vendors with little, if any, oversight from the rest of the committee. The flaws that remain in the standard (e.g. the fact that the _REF classes cannot possibly be implemented as defined) are a direct result of the fact that the committee was not really given a chance to properly review the standard. Had the committee been run in a more efficient manner, this last minute haste, and its attendant lack of attention to detail, would not have occured. We do not think that Christine _intended_ these consequences, but they are the inevitable result of the way she has chosen to run the committee. In the period between the initial acceptance of the PELKS draft standard and its ratification by the NICE board, only two votes were taken by the committee -- and the committee never even discussed the majority of the classes in the standard. Paul's proposal to change the voting rules to be in line with the way other technical committees operate is something we strongly favor. The rules as currently implemented are strongly biased in favor of the status quo -- we think any impartial observer would agree. A failure to vote cannot possibly be interpreted as a "no" vote, yet that is precisely how the rules as currently interpreted by the chair cause the committee to function. We cannot help but note that a significant number of committee members failed to vote over the past year. When polled, most apologized for being away from their email -- to my knowledge none explained that they'd not voted because they intended to vote "no". Paul has been perhaps the most active member of the committee over the past year. He's stated a desire to run the committee in such a way that encourages, rather than discourages participation. I think that he's the kind of person that should be running the committee. -- Fred Hart (fhart@atlanta.twr.com) Tower Technology Corporation http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/Tower/
