Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/volume.24/text0098.txt

Text File | 1991-09-03 | 2.8 KB | 57 lines

Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Scott E. Preece)

| Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Doug Gwyn)
|
| In article <[e-mail]> rms writes:
| >The committee chose 512, not because they think users prefer it,
| >but for totally unrelated reasons having to do with how BSD and
| >System V behave.  I think this decision should be made based on the
| >preferences of actual users.  If the users tell the committee what
| >they want, the committee may yet listen.
|
| The real issue is whether a STANDARD should codify what existing
| practice IS, or what it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
---
Well, in truth a POSIX working group does both, as it should.  The
reason you have a working group and that you have a balloting group, is
that you want to apply as much technical expertise as possible to making
sure that you have a standard that not only embodies current practice
but also embodies *good* practice.  This often includes rationalizing
the behavior of related commands: it would be perfectly reasonable for
the working group to propose definitions so that all commands reporting
file sizes used the same units.  They then have to sell their decision
to the balloting group, because without the consent of the ablloting
group their is no standard.

Now, on this particular point I think the masses reported to have
"voted" for 1K blocks may not have thought all the considerations
through (there are a LOT more systems which can always express the space
allocated for any file as an integral multiple of 512 than of 1024, and
there are many existing shell scripts which assume that du reports as it
does today).  However, if all those people had taken the time and spent
the energy to (1) go to work group meetings, (2) read the mailings from
the work group, (3) sign up for the balloting group, (4) read the
drafts, and (5) cast thoughtful ballots pointing to what they recognized
as problems or inconsistencies, they could probably have had their way
(assuming that, when forced to consider the whole scope of the question,
they didn't come to a different conclusion than when looking at one
particular detail in isolation).

The POSIX process is about the most open process I can imagine; there is
simply no basis for complaining about "the committee" forcing things on
the poor downtrodden masses.  *Anyone* can participate in working group
meetings.  *Anyone* can participate in the balloting process (you have to
be an IEEE member to vote, but they also accept comments from any
interested party, and *anyone* can participate in the ballot resolution
process that works on turning all those ballots into a consensus.

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center    1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:    uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,     arpa:    [e-mail]
phone:    [phone]              fax:    [phone]


Volume-Number: Volume 24, Number 99