[ANSI-Smalltalk] The vote on administration

[Andres Valloud]

Bruce et al...

Just a note... I meant to vote that we use the ANSI process to make our
public, open deliberations official.  In my mind that means that although we
will use the ANSI process, we will administer the standard ourselves.
However, I have a feeling that perhaps the vote categories don't quite
reflect the options we have.  I am assuming we will decide what "administer
ourselves" will mean exactly later on.

Andres.

On Feb 15, 2008 1:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> wrote:

> Bruce Badger wrote:
> > On 14/02/2008, Steve Wart <steve.wart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think Martin's comments are quite compelling. I vote for that
> approach if
> >> anyone's counting
> >
> > Well, we are counting :-)  Here:
> >
> >    http://www.doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=htasnxt27fcezxzg
>
> By the way, here are a bunch of links, from the least organized to the
> most defined:
>
> http://onestepback.org/index.cgi/Tech/Ruby/WritingRcrs.rdoc (RCR)
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ (PEP)
> http://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2 (JCP)
>
> I think that PEPs have a nice balance between complexity and
> formalization, but other's MMV.  (And STEP makes a much better acronym
> than SCP...).
>
> Paolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list
> ANSI-Smalltalk at lists.openskills.org
> http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openskills.org/pipermail/ansi-smalltalk/attachments/20080216/339e9b8f/attachment.html