Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30974

Re: One for Elizabeth...

From Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: One for Elizabeth...
Date 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200
Organization 1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID <lm8kgg$pth$1@online.de> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <4b076a40-c35c-4d60-b502-3c7c7903410f@googlegroups.com> <7x7g5wz3ld.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <453bebff-d3ed-43bd-a7fe-21244a98e5d5@googlegroups.com> <53991bb7-91d9-4148-8c18-6573bb47f093@googlegroups.com> <lkrde7$g15$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw


Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> Indeed, that was the case. All technical decisions were made by a
> Technical Subcommittee or TSC (which included all TC members plus
> visitors and operated much less formally). It was chaired by Greg Bailey
> who, for those who don't know him, is no tool of anybody. All proposals
> passed by the TSC had to be formally ratified by the membership of the
> TC itself, and ANSI rules required "consensus" (which we interpreted to
> be a 75% majority). There were typically 16-18 voting members at a
> meeting, including vendors (FORTH, Inc., Creative Solutions, MPE later
> on, several others), users (companies ranging fron Ford Motor Co.,
> Western Union, NASA, and others to many small businesses), and
> organizations (FIG, several FIG subgroups). FORTH, Inc. had one vote.
> 
> When we started publishing drafts for public review, all public comments
> and our responses were reviewed by ANSI. The Standard became final only
> when there were no more technical changes as a result of a last 4-mo.
> public review.

The Forth200x follows loosely the ANSI rules.  We don't have a separation 
between TC and TSC.  Anton Ertl is the chair, Peter Knaggs the editor.  All 
members are individuals, i.e. one man, one vote.  There's one man from Forth 
Inc, and one from MPE. The Gforth team has three votes (Anton, Gerald and 
me), and the German Forth Gesellschaft two (Ullrich and me, but then, I have 
only one vote in total).  We follow a rough consensus principle, as well, 
but it is somewhat different.  Usually, we discuss until we reach a good 
consensus.  If you look at the minutes, you see that there is rarely (if 
ever) more than one abstain or dissenting vote; most of the votes are 100% 
consensus.  The idea here is that standard codifies common practice, so when 
people couldn't agree on something, it is not standard.

So there is noone who has a veto right, but the Gforth team and the Forth 
Gesellschaft by those implicit rules could veto as group. But so would any 
other informal group, like the Windows/commercial software group against the 
Linux/free software group (we had such a division in Exeter, where for some 
reason all the free software guys were on one side of the table, and the 
commercial software guys were all on the other side of the table - this made 
several discussions harder than necessary ;-).

BTW: There's a mistake in the list of meeting places on www.forth200x.org: 
The two meetings in Haus Rissen, Hamburg, are announced to habe been in 
"Essen".  That needs to be fixed. The actual meeting notes correctly 
identify the location as "Hamburg".

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700
  Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-03 08:26 +0000
    Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-03 19:33 -0700
      Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:35 -0700
        Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-04 11:06 -0700
          Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 01:11 -0700
            Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-05 20:45 -0700
              Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-06 12:53 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-07 09:59 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-08 02:05 +0200
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-10 23:01 -0700
            Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-05 20:58 -0700
              Re: One for Elizabeth... AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 07:16 +0200
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-05 20:52 -1000
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 11:13 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-06 07:12 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 10:57 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-06 17:06 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 07:52 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-06 17:11 +0200
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 08:57 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:38 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:56 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 04:10 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk - 2014-05-08 04:42 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 11:17 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:31 -0700
              Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:23 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:29 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 13:39 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 01:26 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 04:11 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 08:34 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 11:04 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 17:28 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:55 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:59 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-09 20:25 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 05:24 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 22:08 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 22:11 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-13 22:37 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 04:09 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-05-14 04:44 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 05:05 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-14 20:53 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 01:08 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-18 22:23 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 09:48 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:50 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-22 00:46 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-19 22:37 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:58 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:24 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-22 11:05 +0000
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-22 23:19 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-23 11:34 +0000
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:44 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 14:20 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-27 10:30 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 19:58 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 07:45 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-28 03:03 -0500
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:36 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-28 23:03 -0400
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-29 11:01 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-30 16:44 +0000
                Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-29 08:25 -1000
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:32 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:15 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 19:42 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 20:23 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 09:14 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:25 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-29 20:47 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 20:28 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-30 22:24 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100
                Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 10:46 -0700
                Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:24 -0700
      Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400

csiph-web