SEC decision

[David J Bryant]

Submitted-by: djb at cbosgd.att.com (David J Bryant)

I was at the SEC meeting in Chicago and wanted to comment of a few points 
raised by Peter Collinson and others in response to his summary report:

pc at hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) wrote:

  > 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.

Just to correct things, the Open Look PAR was submitted jointly by Sun and 
USL, not just by Sun.

Peter's comment that the Open Look PAR was submitted in response to OSF's
Motif PAR, and that this was done with great regret on Sun/USL's part is 
true and quite significant, and should not be overlooked by observers 
of the proceedings.  Several times during the SEC meeting it was quite 
obvious that the OSF's motives and rationale were significantly different 
than Sun/USL's, as Peter indicates.


In a follow-up from gerwitz at hpcore.uucp (Paul Gerwitz):

  > I feel the SEC was correct.  No reputable standards body should be party to
  > any requests of this type.  This particular action by OSF and Sun(UI)
  > demonstrates the lack of integrity both organizations possess as far as
  > promoting their various views.  

This is an example of a conclusion that I belive is unwarranted and inaccurate
given the differences between OSF's rationale and Sun/USL's.

  > ...What has been 
  > demonstrated by these two groups through their marketing as well as the
  > reports I have seen from IEEE 1204 is that they are unwilling to debate the
  > TECHNICAL issues in an open forum.  Such debate would produce a standard
  > which would be better than anything either can offer alone.  And isn't the
  > standards process really for the benefit of the users, not the suppliers?
  > This manuvering doesn't seem to further the users goals or needs, but
  > simply gives the supplier another feather for the marketing cap.

Since last October I've been participating in IEEE P1201.1's efforts to 
produce a draft standard for a layered Window System API that would span
OSF/Motif, Open Look, Macintosh, MS/Windows and PM.  Perhaps this is the
"better standard" Paul desires, and I can happily say that the group has
made significant progress towards a draft standard in the last six months.
In my experience, and according to comments from others who have been 
working with P1201.1 longer than I, technical issues have never been the 
stumbling block.  Paul's comments about the standards process being for the
benefit of the users has also been a major part of P1201.1's work, as
end-user involvement has been consistently solicited and valued highly.

I have seen significant differences between OSF's and Sun/USL's involvement
in the standards development process.  I realize that my status as an 
employee of AT&T might cast doubts on the objectivity of my observations, 
so I encourage anyone interested to become involved in P1201.1 and/or POSIX
and judge for yourself.  (If you'd like to help us produce P1201.1's draft
standard, we'd *really* like to have you!)

By the way, personally I believe the SEC did the right thing in not endorsing
the proposed PAR's at the April meeting.  There's no doubt in my mind that 
we will see these proposals again, however.  (Though the SEC meeting did last
about 6 hours, the first 2.5 hours or so were taken up with agenda items
that were moved ahead of the Motif PAR (officially titled "Modular Toolkit
Environment") and Open Look PAR (officially titled "Open Toolkit Environment")
discussion.)
                                         UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb
        David Bryant                           att!cborion!djb
        AT&T Bell Laboratories       INTERNET: djb at cborion.cb.att.com
        Room 1B-256                            djb at cbosgd.att.com
        6200 East Broad Street          PHONE: (614) 860-4516
        Columbus, Ohio  43213             FAX: (614) 868-4302


[ This has been a fun debate 8-).  I have also received several postings
  which were just of the form "I agree with what everyone else is saying";
  while I didn't post them, a couple of the senders expressed interest
  that it be noted.  So noted. -- mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 46