NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/lang/lisp/2282

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-22 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky comp.lang.lisp:2282 comp.lang.clos:694 comp.lang.misc:2765 comp.object:3300 comp.std.misc:111 comp.lang.scheme:2081 comp.ai:3181
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!think.com!barmar
From: [e-mail] (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.clos,comp.lang.misc,comp.object,comp.std.misc,comp.lang.scheme,comp.ai
Subject: [[e-mail]: Details of online access to dpANS Common Lisp spec]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:11:44 GMT
Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 95
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:11-0400
From: Kent M Pitman <[e-mail]>

The administrative issues are now resolved and the dpANS Common Lisp spec
is now accessible online by anonymous ftp.

How to Obtain Your Copy

 The files are on the machine named BETA.XEROX.COM in "/pub/cl/document/*",
 and can be retrieved by anonymous ftp.  You may or may not want all of
 these files.  The file Reviewer-Notes.text in that directory contains
 IMPORTANT INFORMATION that EVERYONE should read BEFORE ftp'ing the
 other files, especially since the document is quite large and the
 information contained in Reviewer-Notes.text might cause you to realize
 you only need a subset of the other files.  Among other things, it
 tells you
   - The nature of the files in the directory.
   - What the formal status of these files is.
   - Important caveats for those who choose to go with online
     rather than hardcopy access.
   - How to make Public Review comments.
   - Who to contact with administrative questions.

Background Information about the Administrative Issues

 Numerous people have inquired about why there were delays in announcing
 the FTP address for this data.  It was suggested by some that it was an
 economic issue (e.g., that CBEMA receives royalties on the hardcopy
 sold by Global Engineering Documents, Inc.).  I have been in direct
 discussion with the people at X3 and they tell me that it is true that
 they do receive such royalties, but they were basically willing to
 overlook that issue in order to satisfy our needs.  The real reasons
 for the delay were the following, which I consider quite legitimate and
 was glad to see being addressed:

   - There was an issue of making sure that people understood which
     sources of data are reliable.  Standards bodies make their living
     on being a standard source of information, and that is somewhat at
     odds with the fact that data can be modified (both accidentally
     and deliberately) as it moves about the net.  They were not
     concerned with suppressing access; rather, they were concerned that
     people who had access should understand the difference between
     getting random bits off of the net and getting a
     known-to-be-official copy.

   - The normal procedure for standards is that if you order a
     standard (in hardcopy) or you make a review comment, then you are
     automatically registered to receive future notifications about the
     progress of that standard--in particular, whether there are future
     public review periods.  Anonymous online access by its nature
     doesn't provide for registering yourself, so people getting online
     access need to know they won't be provided with this service.

 After discussing these matters with the X3 folks, we've arrived at what
 we think is a proper compromise, which is to just make full disclosure
 of these caveats and let people decide what's the best solution for
 themselves.  The disclosure information is in the file Reviewer-Notes.text
 mentioned above, so you can see that file for further details.

 The people I spoke to at X3 mentioned that this is their first
 experiment with this issue of online access and they were somewhat
 unprepared to deal with the onslaught of requests they received.  It's
 a learning experience for them, and I've been quite impressed with the
 way they've been handling it thus far.  They do have a lot to learn, but
 compared to a lot of bureaucracies I've seen, I think they're being
 remarkably open minded in the ways they're looking at things.  Their
 primary concerns have not been blind adherence to established policies
 for policy's sake, but rather thoughtful concern about principles of
 fairness and quality--the things a good standards organization should
 be about.  So if you have interactions with them, please show proper
 amounts of patience, courtesy, and thanks for the professionalism and
 hard work they've put in to cut through a lot of red tape for us in a
 very short time.  After all, we want online access to happen increasingly
 in the future, and one way to help assure that is to try where possible
 to make it a pleasant experience for them.

 Note that they are still not prepared to handle e-mail public comments
 and want all Public Review comments in hardcopy.  I know they have
 additional legitimate concerns relating to use of e-mail for Public Review
 and I strongly suggest we leave that entire issue alone for this round,
 and let them cope with that as a separate experiment another time in the
 future.

Happy reviewing.
 -kmp

P.S. from barmar: As far as I know, there is no ftp-mail server for these
documents.  The standard is very large (1300 printed pages, over 3MB of TeX
source, and 4MB of DVI files (which would have to be uuencoded for
mailing)), so it would probably not be appropriate to email it.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

[e-mail]          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar