NICE-ESG-Libs Digest Wed, 14 Jun 95 Volume 1 : Issue 263
Today's Topics:
Procedures
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, 14 Jun 1995 09:45:18 +0100 (BST)
From: S M Fisher <S.M.Fisher@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>
Subject: Procedures
To: NICE Library Committee
Hi,
BM said:
> 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.
The suggestions are not mine, but were originally made by Paul in Digest
222. I also notice that they seem to appeal to Tower (see Digest 248)
> Reducing the criteria for passage is exactly the wrong thing
> to do: it can only make everyone more nervous and encourage
> politicking...
This argument is somewhat bizarre. Those on the committee have an
obligation to invest time in doing the work expected. Voting periods are
always announced well in advance and I would suggest that someone should
be able to appoint another member of the committee as a proxy if he
knows he will not be available.
BM also said in response to Jason Schroeder:
> Jason Schroeder seems not to understand that one cannot do DESIGN
> through politicking. Design is about elegance and quality, not
> one-vote majorities.
This is a curious remark when one considers that the recently announced
PELKS standard was not a product of this committee but the result of an ad
hoc body.
> It is also not appropriate to consider that users have exactly the
> same rights as implementors. Implementors have a duty to reject
> proposals that (although they might appeal to some users) would
> endanger the efficiency of implementations. For that reason many
> serious committees give implementors a veto right. Such a rule
> is stated very precisely, for example, in the Simula standard.
I am sure that no one would wish to promote a change which would be
`impossible' to implement. I would not object to *ALL* implementors having
a veto - this would of course include Ian Leonard. The use of such a veto
must be regarded as an extreme action as it is essentially undemocratic.
The implementors have to get the right balance between providing what the
user's say they want and what they really want.
> More generally, I just cannot understand Jason Schroeder's hostility
> to the role of ISE within NICE. We gave Eiffel to NICE; all that we
> are asking is that NICE does not suddenly change the language and
> library in ways that are meant to make it impossible for ISE to
> implement them. That would be a strange way to thank us.
It is very easy to understand the hostility. ISE gave NICE PELKS. The
library committee has a majority of ISE sympathisers, the result of which
is that discussion is somewhat pointless because when it comes to the vote
nothing changes. In fact ISE supporters do not even have to bother to vote
under the current system!
Bertrand is in fact the only person who has suggested that the current
rules are fair. Does this imply that everyone else wants the rules
changing?
|
|
