🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
>at this time, we will not go ahead with accepting the proposals as
>POSIX projects.
> ...
>	Was the decision of the SEC wrong?

No, it was precisely right.  IEEE and its minions very badly need to
exercise a bit more judgement about what gets pursued as a standard.
This was a step in the right direction.  It is a travesty to produce
a "standard" for each manufacturer's different solution to the same
problem, the more so by the "direct ballot" (translation:  "do it our
way, papa knows best") route.  It is far more important to standardize
things on which there genuinely is consensus.

There is also the entirely separate issue that many people (e.g. me)
feel that *any* standard in this area is premature, since we just don't
understand it well enough yet.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 38

Submitted-by: epstein@trwacs.uucp (Jeremy Epstein)

In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET>, pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
> Submitted-by: pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
> 
> OSF had sent in a request to be allowed to create a standard based on
> Motif.  The request is technically called a PAR - a Project
> Authorization Request.  Not to be outdone and with great regret, Sun
> sent in a PAR for a standard based on OpenLook.
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> 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.

I was at POSIX, but (fortunately) missed the SEC meeting.  [I was told
that the Motif v. OPEN LOOK battle lasted for about six hours!]

Since Peter asked for comments, I think the SEC made the right decision.
I don't know their rationale, but I see no purpose to two (mutually
incompatible) standards which cover the same general area.  As a developer,
this gives me virtually no help.  I'd also like to point out that both
OPEN LOOK and Motif are relatively young (only a few years old), and
that it's probably a good idea to get more market acceptance before
trying to standardize.  Finally, I'd suggest that direct ballot is
really not a good idea for things which are still quite controversial
(i.e., look & feel, applications interfaces).

Now that I've displayed my ignorance of the subject...Peter, can you
post a summary of the SEC's rationale in rejecting the PARs?  That may
help channel this discussion.

--Jeremy
-- 
Jeremy Epstein			UUCP: uunet!trwacs!epstein
Trusted X Research Group	Internet: epstein@trwacs.fp.trw.com
TRW Systems Division		Voice: +1 703/876-8776
Fairfax Virginia


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 39

Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)

In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
>	Was the decision of the SEC wrong?

Without knowing their reasoning, it would be impossible to say.

I will say that this whole business of "software standards" has
gotten way out of hand, and in general resistance to creating an
official standard by rubber-stamping products should be applauded.


[ Note followups.  -- mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 42

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

Submitted-by: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)

In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
>OSF had sent in a request to be allowed to create a standard based on
>Motif.

>Sun sent in a PAR for a standard based on OpenLook.

>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?

I am delighted to hear of this sensible decision.

I cannot see any need for either Open Look or Motif to be
standardised.  Both are controlled by groups who should be quite
capable of ensuring portability.  It is of course in the interests of
their respective proponents to try and make each "more standard" than
the other, but it is not in the interests of users.

Eliminating the inconvenient differences and codifying the common
ground between variants of Unix on the other hand is a worthwhile
project that if done well will be of enormous benefit to users.

-- Richard
-- 
Richard Tobin,                       JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed             
AI Applications Institute,           ARPA:  R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University.                UUCP:  ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 40

Submitted-by: randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson)

I agree with what Henry Spencer said in his posting.

To wit:

  1) The IEEE shouldn't be in the business of rubber-stamping 
     vendor-specific or otherwise proprietary "standards."

  2) The OpenLook & Motif proposals were political rather than technical,
     being made chiefly to add another item for marketing types to use
     for disinformation.

  3) Not enough is known about user interface design for the area
     to be standardised at this time, more experience and research
     is both needed and underway.  The POSIX efforts should be
     focused on standardising good existing practice in well 
     understood areas only.

I think the SEC did the right thing.

Randall Atkinson
randall@Virginia.EDU


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 43

Submitted-by: barmar@think.uucp (Barry Margolin)

I think the SEC's decision was good.  First, for all of the reasons that
others have mentioned.  Second, because I'm not sure that IEEE P1003 is the
appropriate umbrella standards organization for Motif or OpenLook.  ANSI
X3H3.6 is standardizing window systems (X3H3 is the technical committee on
computer graphics) and GUIs (I think Xlib is currently on their agenda).  I
was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that Motif and OpenLook are
intended to be portable beyond just Unix, so it would be inappropriate to
standardize them as part of POSIX.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 44

Submitted-by: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com (Donald Lewine)

|> 	Was the decision of the SEC wrong?

Well, the SEC took away my chance to vote NO!

Given that no POSIX standard has made it through the ballot 
process without major changes, the thought of forcing OSF and
AT&T to fix some of the larger crocks, has some merit.  Also,
the thought of both draft standards going down to flaming defeat
and generating a published list of objections seems nice.

Seriously, I think the SEC made the only decision possible.  I
don't know why it took 6 hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Lewine                (508) 870-9008 Voice
Data General Corporation        (508) 366-0750 FAX
4400 Computer Drive. MS D112A
Westboro, MA 01580  U.S.A.

uucp: uunet!dg!lewine   Internet: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 45