> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:27:36 +0100 > From: Bernard Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Bernard Hill writes: > >| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henrik > >| Norbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >| >There was a "standards committee" (or some similar name) > >| >some years ago. Don't remember who was on it, but I think it > >| >should be revived, with a chairman/leader. > >| > >| Just one comment: having a software developer in charge of standards is > >| a conflict of interests. S/he can drive the standard in the direction of > >| his/her own software. > > > >Yeah, and I'd like to add that we also shouldn't have a musician in > >charge of the standard, since s/he can drive the standard in the > >direction of his/her own favorite musical styles. > > > >;-) > > A reasonable point actually. Eg The needs of Scottish Pipers and Choral > writers might lead the standard in incompatible directions. > > > >(Actually, there's an important reason that programmers should at > >least be consulted regularly. There is a history of computer standard > >committees developing standards that can't be implemented. It would > >be good to avoid this.)
Agreed on all counts. I think the comment about musicians was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, I'm sure most people would agree that the standards committee standard *must* include programmers and musicians, since nearly all of the people who will ever do anything with ABC fall into one or both categories. I don't think we need to (or even can) avoid any possibility of conflict of interest. I do think the people on the committee need to be appropriately considerate of the ways in which other people use ABC, but there are several developers and musicians on this list whom I'd trust to be appropriately impartial in that regard. Jeff To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
