[ANSI-Smalltalk] Re: The vote on administration closes

[Bruce Badger]

The Doodle poll page has gone now, but there were lots of good
comments added to the poll.  I copied them from Doodle and here they
are, for the record:

~~~

Comment by Richard Sargent. (Sunday, February 3, 2008 4:13:00 AM CET)
I would prefer to work with ANSI for an open standard. If that proves
impossible, I suggest working with another organization such as the
Object Management Group (OMG). The OMG is responsible for a number of
"object" standards, so Smalltalk being the quintessential object
language might fit into their processes.

Comment by John Dougan. (Sunday, February 3, 2008 5:54:57 AM CET)
Though I think we should administer the standards process ourselves,
that does not mean that I think we should come up with a new process
out of whole cloth. There are a number of preexisting process models
that could serve us well (JCP, Scheme RxRS committee, IETF, etc.)
expecially until we have enough experience to contemplate
customization.

Comment by John O'Keefe. (Tuesday, February 5, 2008 2:39:47 PM CET)
Since Bruce requested "vote for one", I had to pick ANSI. However, as
you can all see from the discussion board, I really favor a mix of
ANSI and roll-your-own.

Comment by Paolo Bonzini. (Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:45:52 PM CET)
Likewise, I'm not against a double process.

Comment by Bruce Badger. (Friday, February 15, 2008 10:11:40 AM CET)
I also rather like the idea that we will be self organising (perhaps
using the JCP) but support a formal ANSI committee too. For me,
though, the emphasis has to be on openness, hence my vote.

Comment by Bernhard Pieber. (Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:08:06 PM CET)
Since Bruce asked for "vote for one", I picked "admin ourselves".
IMPNSHO, a closed, copyrighted and fee-based standard just so does not
cut it, nowadays. I think, it has to be open and accessible.

As some others, I am not against a double process. However, it would
be a very big problem if the two standards diverge then as a result.

Comment by Andres Valloud. (Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:06:02 PM CET)
As Martin and others said, going with the ANSI process gives us
continuity we would not have otherwise. Nevertheless, I think we can
go the open route of openly discussing what the ANSI committee will
do. In this way, we get a level of valuable participation we would not
have otherwise.

-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/