Opinions on prospective standards sought

[Jeremy Epstein]

Submitted-by: epstein at trwacs.uucp (Jeremy Epstein)

In article <130193 at uunet.UU.NET>, pc at hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes:
> Submitted-by: pc at hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
> 
> OSF had sent in a request to be allowed to create a standard based on
> Motif.  The request is technically called a PAR - a Project
> Authorization Request.  Not to be outdone and with great regret, Sun
> sent in a PAR for a standard based on OpenLook.
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> The final decision of the SEC (Sponsor Executive Committee), the body
> charged with making a decision about the PARs, was effectively to say:
> at this time, we will not go ahead with accepting the proposals as
> POSIX projects.

I was at POSIX, but (fortunately) missed the SEC meeting.  [I was told
that the Motif v. OPEN LOOK battle lasted for about six hours!]

Since Peter asked for comments, I think the SEC made the right decision.
I don't know their rationale, but I see no purpose to two (mutually
incompatible) standards which cover the same general area.  As a developer,
this gives me virtually no help.  I'd also like to point out that both
OPEN LOOK and Motif are relatively young (only a few years old), and
that it's probably a good idea to get more market acceptance before
trying to standardize.  Finally, I'd suggest that direct ballot is
really not a good idea for things which are still quite controversial
(i.e., look & feel, applications interfaces).

Now that I've displayed my ignorance of the subject...Peter, can you
post a summary of the SEC's rationale in rejecting the PARs?  That may
help channel this discussion.

--Jeremy
-- 
Jeremy Epstein			UUCP: uunet!trwacs!epstein
Trusted X Research Group	Internet: epstein at trwacs.fp.trw.com
TRW Systems Division		Voice: +1 703/876-8776
Fairfax Virginia


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 39