🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: gerwitz@hpcore.uucp (Paul Gerwitz)

In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET>, pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
|> Submitted-by: pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
|> 
|> The final decision of the SEC (Sponsor Executive Committee), the body
|> charged with making a decision about the PARs, was effectively to say:
|> at this time, we will not go ahead with accepting the proposals as
|> POSIX projects.
|> 
|> 	Was the decision of the SEC wrong?
|> 
|> Peter Collinson
|> Usenix Standards Representative
|> 
I feel the SEC was correct.  No reputable standards body should be party to
any requests of this type.  This particular action by OSF and Sun(UI)
demonstrates the lack of integrity both organizations possess as far as
promoting their various views.  The standards process is meant to come up
with a consensus of TECHNICAL merits for a given technolgy.  What has been
demonstrated by these two groups through their marketing as well as the
reports I have seen from IEEE 1204 is that they are unwilling to debate the
TECHNICAL issues in an open forum.  Such debate would produce a standard
which would be better than anything either can offer alone.  And isn't the
standards process really for the benefit of the users, not the suppliers?
This manuvering doesn't seem to further the users goals or needs, but
simply gives the supplier another feather for the marketing cap.
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Paul F Gerwitz  WA2WPI  | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com                          |
 | Eastman Kodak Co        | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 41