home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Shane P. McCarron <ahby@bungia.mn.org>
-
- An update on UNIX|= Standards Activities - Part 2
-
- IEEE 1003.0
-
- February 20, 1989
-
- Shane P. McCarron, NAPS International
-
- 1003.0 - POSIX Guide
-
- The following report is printed exactly as it was sent to me
- by our contact in 1003.0. I find his unedited observations
- to be very enlightening.
-
- This past Jan 89 meeting for IEEE 1003.0 group is the fourth
- since the group's inception. The first took place in March
- 1988. In summary, it has been a bit of a roller coaster
- ride. We jumped into the fray back in March with high
- expectations and with the strong intentions of having taken
- bold steps by now. Upon coming up to our one year mark, it
- is clear to me that we have been (and still are)
- experiencing a rite of passage. Specifically, we have gone
- through the growing pains that every volunteer organization
- does when attempting to take bold strides, only to stumble
- on such things as consensus, priorities, level of detail,
- and parameters.
-
- It also clear to me that this was inevitable. Given the
- state of affairs within this whole realm of open systems,
- i.e. contention and conflict, and given the goal of our
- attempting to address this realm (to which no accredited
- body has addressed itself to date), conflict and a bit of
- thrashing around were, in retrospect, to be expected. The
- group is reaching the point where a significant amount of
- synergy is developing. I would define that as everyone
- knowing what to expect from those who are the most vocal AND
- each person knowing when to limit and/or categorize his/her
- discussion.
-
- We struggled with procedural issues in order to ensure that
- anarchy did not reign while concurrently ensuring that
- creativity was not stifled. We are beginning to reach this
- goal.
-
- We experienced the classic problem of everyone during a
- meeting setting high and lofty goals only for things to fall
- through the cracks when they returned to their jobs and saw
- other pressing priorities awaiting them. Goals set during
- this past meeting were more pragmatic and better thought
- out. In addition, the group's leadership is taking a more
- active role to ensure that friendly reminders and follow ups
- occur. (I thought I heard someone say that their legs might
- be broken if action items were missed but I was outside
- getting a cup of tea at the time.)
-
- One very key and contentious issue which was discussed and
- tabled was that of changing our PAR to say that we will
- develop a standard instead of a guide. This kind of change
- has far-reaching ramifications and, in my strong opinion, is
-
-
-
- unwise and unneeded. Some felt it was necessary to put some
- "teeth" into our end-product by making it a standard. So
- much attention is being paid to our effort now that a basic
- list of priority standards would garner significant
- consumption. And we are certainly proceeding further than
- that.
-
- Overall, the group is coming together and a second draft
- version is in the works. (Draft 1 was, for the most part, an
- outline). The goal for our April meeting is to have a draft
- that the group feels is mature enough to begin invoking the
- formal proposal process for future changes. We'll have to
- wait and see what these next few months yield.
-
- The USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee contact for 1003.0
- is Kevin Lewis. He can be reached at:
-
- Kevin Lewis
- DEC
- 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
- Suite 645
- Washington, DC 20004
- klewis@gucci.dec.com
- +1 (202) 383-5633
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 16, Number 32
-
-