🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2643@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
>The internal politics of WG17 are quite irrelevant.
>The point is, *I* don't get a vote.  Lee Naish doesn't get a vote.  Rick
>Muggridge doesn't get a vote.  The team at HP don't get a vote.
>Virtually *all* of the people who are using Common Prolog systems (that
>is, virtually all of the people who will be affected by WG17) have no
>representation at all.

Hold on Richard, many of the people you're talking to don't know the history
of this.
1. ISO committees are formed by their representative organisations in
the countries that form it. When a working group is set up all countries
get the option of (a) participating (b) supporting but not participating
(c) opposing the working group. When WG17 was set up, Britain, France,
Germany etc. chose (a), the US chose (b) and very few countries chose (c). 

This seems to me a totally democratic procedure. Most countries prefer
representative not participatory democracy, and that's what's happening
in this case. I've argued for several years that if Americans want to
influence the committee they should force ANSI to participate. Unfortunately
the Americans, having been the most powerful economic force for the last
40 years, are generally offhand about democracy when it doesn't suit them.
(And they are of course more interested in a Lisp standard.)

> but many nations are not represented at all (there is
>no New Zealand representation, for example), but it isn't REALLY "the
>Swiss" or "the French" but the particular people who managed to get
>themselves appointed as national representatives.

yes, and the paths to that ARE open.

>Let's be honest about this:  democracy is rule BY the same people
>who are affected.  

No, that is participatory democracy. When countries (such as Nicaragua)
try to set up systems which include this, the Americans institute economic
boycotts, support terrorists and the like. (I'm not saying you support
them Richard.)

>Some of us (like me) can't vote for a representative
>even in principle. 

For those who don't know, Richard was in Scotland when the idea of a 
committee was first mooted. He contributed a number of valuable
documents, but was in California and therefore not able to participate
in British meetings when things were really moving. (No, email has
not been a satisfactory substitute!)

Now he is back in New Zealand. NZ is a member of ISO, but is NOT a member
of JTC1 or SC22 and therefore does not vote on this. However they are
able to send representatives, as far as I know. Standardisation 
inevitably involves travel and expense, so countries won't participate
unless they feel it is in their economic interest to do so. In turn it
is generally the companies which foot the bill.

Have you approached the NZ standardization body, Richard? If so, what
was their response?

> Those of us who belong to countries which are
>"represented" did not get any opportunity to pick their "representatives".

This depends entirely on the country. In Britain, which was where the
Prolog standardization started, meetings are open to all who wish to
attend. Indeed many feel this is part of the problem. Rather than have
delegates who speak for proper causes (manufacturers, universities, users
etc.) decisions are taken by whoever comes along. Hence the frequent 
reversals of policy. 

Other countries have different policies. That seems acceptable to me. 
Top-down rule setting isn't necessarily the way to get the right result.

As far as WG17 is concerned, individuals can attend meetings, though at
the end of the day it is countries that vote. Anyone who wants to go,
write to Roger Scowen, NPL, Teddington, Middx, UK for an invitation!

>Insofar as its relations to the people it seeks to govern are concerned,
>WG17 is NOT democratic, and if the members of WG17 were concerned to
>protect the interests of people using Common Prolog it wouldn't need to be.

Ah, this mention of Common Prolog again. Is this really what you want,
Richard? While we don't have a Guy Steele to write the book, it seems to
me that the "throw in every way of doing it" philosophy is something
you have argued against at other times.

I'll have to give it a break there. I don't write as fast as Richard!

Chris Moss.