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: Mon, 12 Jun 95 18:24:35 +0200 From: didierd@eiffel.fr (Didier Dupont @ SOL) Subject: Committee Chair To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com SOL votes for Christine Mingins as Library Committee Chair.
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 09:40:59 PDT From: bertrand@vienna.eiffel.com (Bertrand Meyer) Subject: Vote + Voting procedures To: nice.lib@vienna.eiffel.com Copy to: From: Bertrand Meyer Mailer: BOOM I vote for Christine Mingins for library committee chair. This is not a vote against Paul Johnson, of course, but simply a recognition of Christine's accomplishments: we now have a first library standard and that's largely thanks to her. The accusations of inaction seem a bit strange in that context. Christine's diplomatic talents are particularly valuable. Let me also point out that the suggestions made by Steve Fisher with respect to voting procedures, if I understand them properly, are dangerous. Many of the difficulties in NICE discussions over the past two years or so have resulted from attempts to force various change proposals, inacceptable to ISE (because they were incompatible with earlier implementations, or we felt them to be conceptually wrong), down ISE's throat. In the cases I can think of the target was ISE, but it could happen to other vendors. Reducing the criteria for passage is exactly the wrong thing to do: it can only make everyone more nervous and encourage politicking. Do we really want major library changes, which might make some vendor's implementation non-NICE-conforming overnight, adopted because someone was away and did not vote in time, or because someone was induced to support a motion in exchange for some other reward (or as a response to ``I will kill you if you don't vote for ...'')? I don't think so. We want changes adopted if the committee agrees on them. The process illustrated by the events of the past few weeks is the right one: trying to hammer things out until we find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, or at least to a broad majority. If we disagree on a particular point our time is better spent talking to each other over the merits of the proposal (even if that occasionally means fighting with each other) than trying to win votes in exchange for favors. -- BM
