In defense of the X3J11 committee

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <18308 at mimsy.UUCP> chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> [stuff about how hard it was to contribute to X3J11]

All I can say about that is, I didn't find it hard to hear about the
standardization effort from the start, obtain drafts from the Redactor,
and contribute something to the effort even before my organization
decided to officially sponsor my participation.  Of course it took
time and a modest amount of other resources ($175 to $200 annual fee,
plus travel expenses) to participate fully, so if one really didn't
care enough about C standardization to make this investment worthwhile
then I suppose one would not have been able to exert as much influence
as would otherwise be the case.  That seems fair to me.  There were
several individuals who paid their own way (and if I keep forgetting to
submit my travel voucher, I'll also be in that category).  I skipped
the Paris meeting; there weren't very many held at non-USA locations.

>Well.  Perhaps I have overstated things, but what effect does your
>public review comment have?  Unless you found an editorial mistake,
>the reply will most likely be something like this:
>	The Committee has reviewed your suggestion and voted on
>	it.  The result was 29 to 1 against.
>Or:
>	The description in paragraph 4, subsection 13, section 517,
>	chapter 33, volume 95 of the draft Standard is perfectly clear
>	to everyone on the Committee.  So there!
>(Well, maybe not.  Actually, some people send some really stupid
>suggestions; the reply editor is required to be polite even then.)

That really isn't a fair statement of how X3J11 responded to public
comments.  Virtually every issue was discussed in detail by several
Committee members, and in a large number of instances the issue was
brought before the full Committee for discussion.  Every official
response document was carefully reviewed by several Committee members
to ensure maximum accuracy and completeness.  No issue was brushed
aside as unimportant.  However, proposals for significant changes to
the draft Standard needed to offer sufficient justification before
the Committee would be persuaded to adopt them.  In many cases there
simply were not sufficient reasons given to justify making the change,
or else specific counterarguments were found during the discussion.

Of 2388 issues addressed during the public review process
(including many that were submitted informally during that period),
the Committee responses can be categorized as follows.
(The actual responses, especially in cases where proposals were
not accepted, were considerably more detailed than these summaries.)

 905 (38%) BASICALLY ACCEPTED:

 169	This was accepted as an editorial change to the Standard.
 160	Changes have been made along the lines you suggested.
 106	This was accepted as an editorial change to the Rationale.
  81	This issue can be resolved by a careful reading of the Standard.
  77	The request is reflected in the current draft.
  64	This was accepted as an editorial change.
  60	This editorial change has been made.
  46	This proposal was accepted.
  43	The Committee chose a different approach to deal with this issue.
  38	The Committee has voted for this idea.
  34	The Committee has made significant changes in this area.
  13	This issue can be resolved by a careful reading of the Rationale.
   7	The Standard provides another way to do this.
   7	Extensions are allowed in this regard, but they are not required.

1163 (49%) BASICALLY REJECTED:

 217	No change to the existing wording was considered necessary.
 195	The Committee discussed this proposal but decided against it.
 151	The Committee has voted against this idea.
 104	The Committee believes this is clear enough as is.
  70	This proposed editorial change was discussed but not accepted.
  54	This was considered to be an invention of limited utility.
  40	The Standard reflects the result of previous discussion of this issue.
  39	This is too radical a change to adopt at this stage.
  37	Quality of implementation is beyond the scope of the Standard.
  33	The Committee has reaffirmed this decision on more than one occasion.
  27	The Standard reflects widespread existing practice in this regard.
  25	This concerns matters beyond the scope of X3J11.
  23	This does not appear to be based on prior art.
  21	This proposal would invalidate too much existing source code.
  16	This proposal conflicts with too much prior art.
  15	The Standard must accommodate a variety of environments.
  14	The Standard must accommodate a variety of architectures.
  13	In some cases, this proposal would be difficult to implement.
  10	It was decided to allow implementors freedom in this regard.
   8	This proposal contains insurmountable technical errors.
   6	The Standard reflects the base document in this regard.
   6	The Standard is not intended to double as a tutorial.
   6	Such a constraint on implementations was deemed undesirable.
   5	The Committee has not adopted your proposal.
   4	The Standard must accommodate a variety of preprocessing methods.
   4	Adding too many facilities would unduly enlarge the language.
   3	This would run counter to the historical ``spirit of C''.
   2	This would impair development of portable source code.
   2	This proposal would preclude code optimization.
   2	This proposal would conflict with other portions of the Standard.
   2	The present wording is required for accuracy and completeness.
   2	The Standard supports a one-pass compilation model.
   2	The Standard remedies a deficiency in the base document.
   2	The Standard must accommodate anticipated future evolution.
   2	The Standard must accommodate a variety of character sets.
   1	This could not be efficiently implemented on many architectures.

 320 (13%) OTHERS:

 153	This was considered a request for information, not an issue.
  78	This is a misinterpretation of correct wording in the document.
  44	This was considered a comment rather than an issue.
  19	A specific proposal is needed before action can be taken.
  17	This was not considered an issue requiring action.
   5	This is an issue for the implementor, not the Standard.
   2	Existing implementations may indeed not meet Standard criteria.
   2	unknown

DISCLAIMER: Although I believe the preceding to be accurate, it is not
to be construed as an official X3J11 statement.