How are we going to reach decisions on a new standard? How come the proposal by Guido was suddenly expanded? Shall I now post my version on a website and call it revision IV? Are we going to vote? If so who votes?.
The density of mail on the list is no guide to the opinion of list members. If someone raises an objection to some element of the standard do we then have to have 30 "I agree" messages on an already very active list to show this is the will of the assembly I think we must first decide whether Revision III is a step forward. Then, whichever version is taken as a basis for discussion, we need it reformulated in a hierarchically numbered fashion so that we can discuss particular sections ( 2.7.6 or whatever), propose changes and come to a decision. It may be that we have to revive the developers list and restrict discussion to the new standard until we have sorted it. What is Chris Walshaw's position on this? ABC is his invention and I would have thought he had some "ownership" of the standard. There is no reason why anyone should not be extend ABC and call it ABD, but for a self-selected group to take over a standard and change it gratuitously seems to set a very dodgy precedent - standard hijacking? The best examples I can think of come from Microsoft (HTML, Java) and we wouldnt want to end up like that, now would we. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
