Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!not-for-mail
From: n...@usenix.org (Nicholas M. Stoughton)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Standards Update, POSIX.0: Guide to POSIX OSE
Date: 3 Nov 1993 10:33:30 -0800
Organization: USENIX Standards Report Editor
Lines: 78
Sender: s...@uunet.uu.net
Approved: s...@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Message-ID: <2b8thqINN10o@rodan.UU.NET>
Reply-To: std-u...@uunet.uu.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-u...@uunet.uu.net
Submitted-by: n...@usenix.org (Nicholas M. Stoughton)
USENIX Standards Report Editor
Nicholas M. Stoughton < n...@usenix.org>, Report Editor
POSIX.0: Guide to POSIX OSE
Kevin Lewis < kle...@gucci.enet.dec.com> reports on the
October 18-22, 1993 meeting in Bethesda, MD:
This was a week of shifting expectations. We were hoping to
start resolution of the recirculation ballots, but, since
the deadline was set after the ending of the meeting (and,
by the way, was subsequently extended to November 8), the
group shifted its attention to two other questions; ``Where
do we go from here, if anywhere'' and ``How can we be sure
that this document moves smoothly through the international
standards community''.
We spent a fair amount of time talking about where we might
go from here. Member of two groups presented their ideas in
the form of sample Project Authorization Requests (PARs).
One discussed ODP and the other focused on profiling from
the user perspective. If you want my opinion, (and you must
if you're reading this), ODP seems to be the way that many
think we should go. That doesn't mean that other work would
not also be pursued. The problem is that old classic
conflict of too big a plate for too few people, particularly
given the state of the industry and the reduced number of
POSIX participants.
One member was quite vociferous about having the group
pursue ODP. The group's consensus was that it is not ready
to pursue any other work as a group until the current effort
is close to completion. But that doesn't mean that someone
can't go off and champion such an effort on their own, or
with the help of others, and my belief is that someone may
do this.
I must also admit that the current reduction in participants
along with the possibility of POSIX, or rather the Portable
Applications Standards Committee (PASC), being restructured
does, in my view, have a psychological effect on how new
work might be accomplished. As you can see, there are many
unanswered questions.
As for the question about getting the guide through the
international standards community, the first hiccup occurred
when SC22 omitted the POSIX.0 guide from its list of
documents to be forwarded for Committee Document (CD)
registration and letter ballot. Most of what I heard about
this was in the halls and over lunch. It appears that SC22
did not like what it perceived to be a change in scope in
draft 16, the recirculation draft. The WG15 Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) agreed to back up a step and forward
draft 15 for SC22 CD registration and letter ballot. Yes,
we are regressing ...) *but*, the plan, or should I say hope,
is that all concerns raised by SC22 will be addressed during
resolution of the recirculation ballots. I think they will
be addressed ultimately.
The plan is to come into the January meeting at Irvine
prepared t commence the recirculation resolution. I will be
sending out ballots to the section leaders as I receive them
so they can get started as soon as possible.
Now, for that $64 question: when do I think POSIX.0 will be
done? I have been burned more than once trying to answer
that. But I will try again: look for a completion, i.e.
submittal to the IEEE standards board for approval, sometime
during late summer or early fall of 1994.
Volume-Number: Volume 33, Number 13
|