[ANSI-Smalltalk] What do the vendors think?

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

Bruce Badger wrote:
> This would mean that we really do still need our own process, but
> separate from that we need to encourage a few people to be in the
> INCITS committee.  We must then hope that the formal committee
> reflects the spirit of the open process :-)

I think a dual path is the best long term solution.

There is a generational gap regarding the importance of "ANSI" or "IEEE"
or "ISO". For us older guys, who happen to make up most of the vendors
and current clients, they are extremely significant. But if you see
someone who entered the IT field after the .com bubble or shortly before
discussing "802.11g vs n" and ask if they are talking about IEEE
standards you will probably get confused stares as a response.

So a fully open standards process (perhaps associated with the STIC
name?) could be started up to mainly extend the existing one. Instead of
duplicating efforts we could have whole chapters be just "see ANSI". I
know how frustrating it can be to find references to closed documents
like that but as others have pointed out there would be too much work
involved otherwise.

The new ANSI effort woud be free to adopt (or not, but if done right
there should be no reason for rejection) the work done in this open
process. The free standard could then be changed by replacing the
affected sections by "see ANSI", but I would far prefer for the opposite
to happen and over the years for more and more non copyright infringing
material to replace the initial "see ANSI"s. I imagine the open process
generating a new version every one or two years while the ANSI would
would have updates every five or ten years.

If it turns out that I am wrong and the Smalltalkers for 2018 still care
about "ANSI" then we will have it.

-- Jecel