From Robin.Fairbairns@cl.cam.ac.uk Mon Nov 15 09:56:07 1993 Received: from swan.cl.cam.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA08903 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 15 Nov 1993 10:56:35 +0100 Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk (user rf (rfc931)) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.5) to cl; Mon, 15 Nov 1993 09:56:31 +0000 To: Chris Cartledge Cc: IST/31 , SC24 list , Robin.Fairbairns@cl.cam.ac.uk Subject: Re: Slow production of Standards in SC24 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:35:03 GMT." Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:56:07 +0000 From: Robin.Fairbairns@cl.cam.ac.uk X-Mts: smtp Message-Id: <"swan.cl.cam.:197720:931115095702"@cl.cam.ac.uk> X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Chris Cartledge writes: |> [...] SC24 has in JTC1 one of the |> longest times to produce a standard (anout 22 years). This is of course ridiculous, since a turn-round time of 22 years would mean we might be expecting the imminent arrival of our first standard. A case of the abuse of statistics, perhaps? |> This does not seem |> to be because of the standards produced but because of the standards not |> produced! |> |> SC24 has traditionally listed work items where a need is known rather |> than where an editor is available and work underway. A tradition is a very fine thing (though how one gets established over the life time of SC24 is an interesting concept, imho). |> Given the (mis)use to |> which ISO is putting our work item lists, it may be advisable to change |> our practices accordingly. Project lists are supposed to be just that: things on which work is proceeding. I was unaware that ISO/IEC collect these sorts of statistics, but it does explain why (e.g.) SC21 is so eager to prune inactive projects from its list. I would support a change of procedures that listed inactive (but desirable) projects in a separate list. Robin -- Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns rf@cl.cam.ac.uk U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QG, UK