Alex Zamfirescu wrote:
>
> Dear Experts:
>
> We are all in flames sometimes. Mr. Davis brought
> his points of view from his technical angle. He might
> have forgotten that standards are driven by three
> "vectors", from which only one is technical. The other
> two are the consensus mechanism and the third is
> the need to enable competition (Gov. push - sometimes against
> what companies would like).
>
> Looking at a standard only from the technical perspective
> might lead to frustration. Probably, in DASC we let people
> believe that only technical merit is the driver. We have to
> do a better work educating people.
> ...
I think I've kept the gist of this message.
I disagree with the implication that people who would place
the technical merit of a technical standard first,
"need to be educated". However, Tim is actively
developing a tool depending on the standard in question,
so Alex probably has evaluated Tim's comments with
some accuracy. But such comments never could have
been made, had not there been technical excuses for them
in the first place.
This is a technical organization, and its standards
have no other reason for existence than to guide
technical consensus in industry.
Now, it is true that consensus and consideration
of industrial status quo are important, but they are
important WHENEVER a group meets to make a decision.
If Alex's meaning was that we should not fail to
agree because of technical quibbles, then I agree
with him.
My reason originally for commenting on this exchange
was that I believed that the standard under discussion
was not very good technically. Part of the reason
might have been that the consensus process during
deliberation of this particular standard might
have been better done.
Because the standard was not rejected, but was
approved, the consensus process actually succeeded
in some sense. Because the approval was based virtually
on a copy of existing commercial software, it will
undoubtedly be adequate to some end or
another in the industry.
Does this mean that this particular standard deserves
praise, and perhaps should be used as an example of
future standards work?
My opinion is, NO. There seem to be improvements
possible. In my opinion, the SYMPTOM is technical
lack of excellence. The cause seems to be something
which should be improved.
I think changes should be made. They CAN be made,
and the SYMPTOM of technical inexcellence
might thereby be alleviated.
I don't insist that any suggestion I've made be
adopted as part of a solution; but, what should be done?
Does anyone want to pursue this? Or, have we now
agreed to go back to sleep?
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams