standards development process

[Dave Sill]

Larry Cipriani writes:
> Future language standardizations should have more representation by
> users, and this should be required by ANSI...

Henry Spencer replies:
>How do you propose that they should require this?  Forbid standardization
>without adequate user representation?

Does the phrase "No taxation without representation" ring a bell?  Oh
that's right, Henry's Canadian.

>There is NO LAW against more users getting involved in ANSI
>standardization work!!  The problem is that few of them bother.

It's not that they don't bother.  Compiler-marketing companies
obviously have more at stake in the standardization than the typical
company that uses their compilers.  Hence, they are more willing to
support an employee on a standards committee.

It's not quite as easy to be on a committee as some have suggested.
Yes, the membership fee is nominal; and yes, everyone is eligable.
But the cost of attending meetings all over the country is more than
most individuals can afford.  Then there's the time that must be
spent, probably 10-20 hours/week if you want to do it right, maybe
even more.

I'm not ready to be a martyr for an ANSI standard.  There are much
more worthwhile things one can do.  (Support the Free Software
Foundation, Amnesty International, WHO, et cetera.) 

Are comments the only form of input a non-ANSI member has to an ANSI
committee/standard?  The comments are a good idea, but X3J11 is not
bound use them.  It seems like a public ballot would be reasonable.
Isn't that what IEEE does?

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"A point comes when enough money has been invested in a certain
 paradigm that something has to be truly revolutionary to throw
 it over."
					-- Bill Joy