[ANSI-Smalltalk] Welcome

[John Dougan]

I've found that the history of ANSI standard language efforts is a 
checkered one.   Myself, I'd rather be using something like the IETF 
process:

http://edward.oconnor.cx/2006/11/DIY-standards-body
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt

The IETF process appears to be more inclusive and much more resistant to 
vendor lock.  I don't think a $1200 fee is much of a guarantee of 
seriousness....it hasn't worked before and is enough to eliminate much 
of the open source community.

Cheers,

 -- John Dougan

Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote:
>> On 14/11/2007, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> wrote:
>>
>>> I think Peter's question was targeted more to the accessibility of 
>>> final
>>> standard. And here another question opens: why won't we choose some
>>> other standards body, which has more open politics to final documents?
>>> OMG is coming to my head ...
>>
>> We have the ANSI process rolling now, Janko.  If you are seriously
>> suggesting that we change horses then I think you would need to put up
>> a more detailed proposal so we can compare the alternatives.
>>
>> In the meantime I suggest that we keep working on the bird we have in
>> our hand, viz ANSI.
>
> Well, we are rolling first and foremost a Smalltalk standardization 
> process and  ANSI as a standardization body was IMHO chosen more by 
> inertia, because existing standard is ANSI. So, the race started for 
> Smalltalk standard and yes, you started ANSI path, but that doesn't 
> mean we need to continue that path, we are not too deep yet anyway.
>
> If there is some better standardization body, we should at least 
> consider it. Better for me is more open on final documents, not 
> necessary less costly. That yearly fee is kind of a guaranty for 
> seriousness.
>
> What others think about that?
>
> JAnko
>

-- 
John Dougan
jdougan at acm.org