From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-25 14:18:11
At 04:50 PM 1/24/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:43:28 -0500, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>>A "full proposal" must include proposed wording for the actual
>>to go in the TR, as well as the usual supporting material. (Note that
>>committee may not act on the proposal right away, or may request
>>to the wording.)
>If the committee requests a revision to the wording, does the library
>"miss" the deadline or is it considered presented in time anyway?
That hasn't been decided yet. My guess is that the committee (actually, the
Library Working Group) will grant leeway for detail revisions if it is a
proposal they like. If there is a lot of opposition to the basic concept of
the proposed library, they may be less flexible.
>>If the committee sticks to its current schedule, any library proposal
>>which doesn't make the April deadline will suffer a delay of at least
>Is there any danger than then no other deadlines are set in the future
>because the committee runs out of time? Or is it obligatory that many
>"sessions" are set during the standardization path?
Beyond the TR, the schedule gets fuzzy. For example, the committee is
clearly very interested, and actively working on, a revision to the full
standard. But ISO hasn't approved that yet, and hasn't set a schedule for
the revision assuming they do approve it.
Another factor is participation. How many people show up at meetings, how
many people volunteer to do work? The committee, like Boost, is an all
volunteer organization. If no one volunteers, the work doesn't get done.
That's why Boosters on the committee have tried to encourage other Boosters
to participate on the committee, either formally or informally.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk