Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: p...@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Standards Update, POSIX.0: Guide to Open Systems Environments
Message-ID: <1991Sep6.184552.8965@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 5 Sep 91 08:53:29 GMT
Sender: use...@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Organization: Hillside Systems, 61 Hillside Avenue, Canterbury, Kent CT2 8HA
Lines: 64
Approved: s...@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Originator: s...@uunet.UU.NET
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-u...@uunet.uu.net
Submitted-by: p...@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee
Stephen R. Walli < ste...@usenix.org>, Report Editor
POSIX.0: Guide to Open Systems Environments
Kevin Lewis < kle...@gucci.enet.dec.com> reports on the July 8-12, 1991
meeting in Santa Clara, CA:
The July meeting of POSIX.0 saw a different approach to the week's
work. Instead of abiding by the draft agenda, the group trashed it
and took what might be called a ``fish or cut bait'' approach.
POSIX.0 looked at each major section and determined whether or not it
was ready for mock ballot, or could be made ready by the October
meeting.
Accomplishing the latter required individuals to step up to the task
of editting sections during the meeting, with some degree of plenary
review before the week's end. This required a commitment from the
group at large to refrain from any super ethereal or journalistically
based editorial discussions. This has sometimes been hard to avoid in
the past. The group stuck to its guns, however, and a great deal of
headway was made.
The sections within the guide that remain undecided for mock ballot
are:
- networking,
- security,
- graphics (GKS, etc.),
- command user interface,
- system administration,
- fault management.
Should the group decide that a section is not ready, we will simply
not include it in the mock ballot. It will be included in the formal
ballot.
As it currently stands, the group plans to start the mock ballot early
in November, bringing all ballot comments to the January meeting.
This appears to be very feasible.
The POSIX.0 project was reviewed at this meeting by the TCOS-SS
Project Management Committee. The review determined there was the
need for other TCOS-SS working groups to better coordinate with and
contribute to the POSIX.0 guide.
This was mandated through an SEC resolution. The greatest concern
among the other standards working groups is ``how in the world are
they going to find time to do that.'' The groups are already concerned
about their current work loads.
I believe that once we go through the preparation at the October
meeting, and get into the mock ballot, many of the loops that are
still open will be closed. That is not to say that there will be no
outstanding issues, but the major concerns should be laid to rest.
Volume-Number: Volume 25, Number 12
|