bwbadger at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 23:52:56 GMT 2007
On 14/11/2007, John Dougan <jdougan at acm.org> wrote:
> 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
The thought was that since we already have an ANSI standard we should
carry on with that rather than starting all over again.
It is for us to make this exercise a success, or not. I'm sure
ANSI/INCITS would like us to be successful.
> 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.
I am sure each of the standards bodies have their pluses and minuses.
As I suggested to Janko regarding the OMG, if you seriously think that
we should move from ANSI then to IETF we need to know more about why
that is worthwhile. Why exactly do you think the IETF process is
better than ANSI? And are the differences compelling enough from us
to start over?
We must also be wary of never getting started because we keep
re-addressing the meta-issues rather than getting on with talking
about Smalltalk. Frankly I don't expect the standards body to play
too much of a role in figuring out what should be in the standard. I
look to the standards body for a mechanism to arrive at a consensus
and to make the documents that we finally release recognisable as a
By making the discussion and document building open and transparent we
can make any shenanigans obvious. ANSI won't stop us from doing that.
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
More information about the ANSI-Smalltalk