The IETF slides are interesting. This approach feels more "agile" than ANSI, but Paolo's point about re-writing the entire spec if we were to move away from ANSI needs to be addressed.<br><br>Having two standards is a bit like having two watches...
<br><br>Steve<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 14, 2007 8:08 PM, John Dougan <<a href="mailto:jdougan@acm.org">jdougan@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I've found that the history of ANSI standard language efforts is a<br>checkered one. Myself, I'd rather be using something like the IETF<br>process:<br><br><a href="http://edward.oconnor.cx/2006/11/DIY-standards-body" target="_blank">
http://edward.oconnor.cx/2006/11/DIY-standards-body</a><br><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt</a><br><br>The IETF process appears to be more inclusive and much more resistant to
<br>vendor lock. I don't think a $1200 fee is much of a guarantee of<br>seriousness....it hasn't worked before and is enough to eliminate much<br>of the open source community.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br> -- John Dougan
<br><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>Janko Mivšek wrote:<br>> Bruce Badger wrote:<br>>> On 14/11/2007, Janko Mivšek <<a href="mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si">janko.mivsek@eranova.si</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>>> I think Peter's question was targeted more to the accessibility of
<br>>>> final<br>>>> standard. And here another question opens: why won't we choose some<br>>>> other standards body, which has more open politics to final documents?<br>>>> OMG is coming to my head ...
<br>>><br>>> We have the ANSI process rolling now, Janko. If you are seriously<br>>> suggesting that we change horses then I think you would need to put up<br>>> a more detailed proposal so we can compare the alternatives.
<br>>><br>>> In the meantime I suggest that we keep working on the bird we have in<br>>> our hand, viz ANSI.<br>><br>> Well, we are rolling first and foremost a Smalltalk standardization<br>> process and ANSI as a standardization body was IMHO chosen more by
<br>> inertia, because existing standard is ANSI. So, the race started for<br>> Smalltalk standard and yes, you started ANSI path, but that doesn't<br>> mean we need to continue that path, we are not too deep yet anyway.
<br>><br>> If there is some better standardization body, we should at least<br>> consider it. Better for me is more open on final documents, not<br>> necessary less costly. That yearly fee is kind of a guaranty for
<br>> seriousness.<br>><br>> What others think about that?<br>><br>> JAnko<br>><br><br>--<br></div><font color="#888888">John Dougan<br><a href="mailto:jdougan@acm.org">jdougan@acm.org</a><br></font><div>
<div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ANSI-Smalltalk@lists.openskills.org">ANSI-Smalltalk@lists.openskills.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk" target="_blank">
http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>