12/12/93: OS9 UG and Standards group by Delphi, | Category: Delphi - Standards | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)

OS9 UG and Standards group

83982 12-DEC 11:50 Standards
OS9 UG and Standards group
From: NIMITZ To: ALL

The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me that
they see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However – IF I
FOUND ONE AND IT TURNS OUT OK, the UG would consider accepting it as an organ
of the Users group later. When I was less than accepting of this proposal,
well, it seems to
have upset yet another member of the BOD. So, I’m asking the members of the
OS9 community to look at this situation, and tell me if they would accept such
a proposal – that one person or group should do the work of setting up a
organization to benefit al
l, then turn it over to the group that SHOULD be helping to get the job done in
the first place after they put no effort into it. Frankly, I see no
improvement in this group. They tell me – ‘give us time, give us a chance
‘ but I’ve offered this group a chance to start an activity that many of the
small developers tell me they see as a boon to all and offer to donate my time
in a cooperative venture, and get told to do it myself and give it to them
later? Am I missing so
mething here?? What do you think??

22 comments to OS9 UG and Standards group

  • pucc_unknown

    83985 12-DEC 14:58 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: JOELHEGBERG To: NIMITZ

    David,

    > The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me that
    > they see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However –

    This is a very critical time for the OS9 User’s Group, and I can tell
    you there are many many things on the BOD’s minds. We had an on-line
    meeting here last night and many many topics were discussed, and the
    meeting lasted for quite a while. (I’m not speaking from a BOD
    perspective, as I’m not part of the BOD, but rather the MOTD editor.)
    Frankly, a standard’s group is something that the OS-9 User’s Group is
    not ready to get involved with because of the many other critical areas
    it has to concentrate on in restarting the OS-9 User’s Group.

    Personally, I would love to see a standards group formed someday… it
    would be a boon to all.

    — Joel Mathew Hegberg.

    Delphi : JOELHEGBERG
    GEnie : j.hegberg
    Internet : JoelHegberg [at] delphi [dot] com

  • pucc_unknown

    83994 12-DEC 19:33 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: DSRTFOX To: NIMITZ

    I’ll be printing your article in the next issue. Why don’t you ask the UG
    to appoint YOU as head of the “standards committee” and then you can go on
    your merry way… at least with the groups blessing, and you can probably
    get a little more interest since you will at least have the endorsement of the
    UG. The few workers in the group do have their hands full, but I can’t see
    why they wouldn’t at least give you an endorsement!

  • pucc_unknown

    83999 12-DEC 23:55 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: WA2EGP To: NIMITZ

    Well, I wouldn’t mind helping if I able to offer anything useful. Whether I
    can or not, I don’t know.

  • pucc_unknown

    84009 13-DEC 18:52 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: EDELMAR To: NIMITZ

    David,

    I’m not speaking for the UG or the BOD but I will speak as 1 of 5 Director’s
    and try to state clearly my position regarding your desire for a broad-based
    standards committee.

    I have a rather strict definition of ‘standard’. Most of the things you
    appear to be alluding to fall, at best, in the category of practices – not
    standards. You’ve mentioned only one subject which might qualify as a
    standard; i.e., defining certain signals. But you haven’t provided any
    examples of where or why this is needed. Also, who else in the industry
    agrees that this is a problem which needs to be addressed or are you
    addressing a problem peculiar to your Company’s hardware/software. I don’t
    know. I suggest you define the problem you perceive clearly in your mind
    first. Then discuss the specifics with representatives of other Companies
    in the OS-9 community; i.e., OEMs, VARs, programmers and other interested
    parties. You will also have to consider possible backward compatibility
    problems. If you can get a concensus from them that this is indeed a problem,
    prepare and submit a proposal to the UG outlining the problem, what the objec-
    tive is and a list of experts in the specific area willing to serve on that
    committee. I will certainly look favorably on such a proposal.

    The rest of the subjects you mentioned appear to fall in the category of
    practices or information but not as a standard. For example, you mentioned
    preparing a ‘library’ that would include many functions (beyond MW’s I assume)
    to make it easier for programmers. I don’t have a problem with you or anyone
    else doing this. But I don’t see where UG endorsement or sponsorship is
    necessary for this. This ‘library’ could be submitted to the existing UG
    library or otherwise made available to programmers. However, I’d think that
    if the ‘library’ is truly worthwhile and will be supported, you’d want to
    sell it to programmers. Anyway, I don’t see that making such a ‘library’
    a ‘standard’ will necessarily benefit the community. Most experienced C
    programmers already have their own libraries which they would probably prefer
    to use. But again, you may always discuss this with others as I described
    above and if there is a consesus that a standard library of the type you
    propose is necessary, submit a proposal to the UG. I will listen.

    David, I’d suggest you read the Constitution of the UG. Among the primary
    objectives are the expansion of the UG by bringing in industrial members and
    new users as well as expanding support for existing members. You may have
    some excellent ideas consistant with these objectives but you will have to
    define and present these ideas more clearly than you have. You will have to
    do your homework first. And I will not vote for a committee with nebulous
    objectives and broad powers regardless of who heads it. I will favor a
    separate committee to address each problem/objective. BTW, if you look
    into how ANSII or the IEEE does this, I think you’ll find the procedure
    they follow is similar to what I’m asking for; i.e., they do not initiate
    such committees. Proposals are presented to them by an informal group.
    Then, after credentials and many other factors are examined, they may
    endorse the establishment of a committee to prepare ‘draft specifications’
    under their ‘umbrella’.

    Please remember that for a standard to be credible, it must be accepted by
    the entire community – Industrial, VARs, programmers, users, etc. Calling
    something a standard does not make it so. UG endorsement of a standard
    without the participation and agreement of all interested parties, would
    only serve to discredit the UG.

    Ed Gresick
    Director, OS-9 Users Group

  • pucc_unknown

    84030 14-DEC 00:37 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: NIMITZ (NR)

    I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developing
    standards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included)
    we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems
    .all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

    The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group..
    What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official users
    group just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp when
    there is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or from
    the industrial users (at all)..

    The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find out
    as much as they can about what the users need, and what they would like
    to do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

    -* Mike

  • pucc_unknown

    84042 14-DEC 18:42 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84030)
    From: EDELMAR To: ILLUSIONIST

    Mike,

    > I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developing
    > standards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included)
    > we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems
    > .all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

    The UG is comprised only of volunteers; that includes the officers, directors,
    and people like the MOTD Editor and the Librarian. No one is paid or compen-
    sated for their time or expenses nor are there any paid employees. The
    only resources (assets if you will) the UG has are its name and membership.

    The simple fact we might have a problem, doesn’t mean we need a standard.
    Standards are useful only if all parties concerned agree that there is a
    problem, participate in their preparation, agree to them and follow them.

    > The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group..
    > What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official users
    > group just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp when
    > there is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or from
    > the industrial users (at all)..

    What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if the UG adopts standards
    without all interested parties being involved. Worse, what if it is a
    standard contrary to what they have been doing.

    In all cases, it will have to be the interested parties that will do the
    work. The question is whether the UG will endorse the work. There are
    several steps involved whether the UG is involved or not. Let’s look at
    how most standards committees have been formed in the past.

    Typically, someone will encounter a problem. Most people will contact their
    local expert to get a solution. If no solution can be found, several other
    people are contacted. (Along the way, the problem is further defined.)
    Finally, leading experts will be contacted. Most often, the ‘problem’ will
    have been resolved along the way. Occassionally, there is no satisfactory
    resolution and the people involved will form an informal committee with the
    intent of preparing a standard. They will contact an organization like the
    IEEE, ANSII, ISO, etc. (but it could be the OS-9 Users Group as well if the
    subject is applicable). These organizations have certain requirements before
    they will formally ‘adopt’ a committee; i.e., statement of the problem(s),
    why they are problem(s), what experts (including their credentials) concur
    that this is a problem and the names of the Companies and/or individuals who
    will serve on the committee. If all of the requirements of the standards
    organization are met, they will issue the committee a ‘charter’ which will
    among other things, define the scope of their work and the expected end
    result (there are many other provisions but they’re not important for this
    example). At this point, a working committee will be formed which will do
    the actual work of preparing the specifications which can later be formalized
    as a standard. During the preparation of the specification, ‘draft specifi-
    cations’ are often circulated for review. Interested parties send in their
    comments and the specification is revised. This continues until the
    differences are resolved. At this point the specification becomes a standard
    and the committee is dissolved having completed its work.

    Even when one of the large standards organizations sponsors the effort, it is
    the people who called for forming the committee who usually do most of the
    work. The sponsoring organization provides no help – indeed, in most cases,
    they may not even understand the work being done by its various committees

    Should the UG do things differently? Granted, being small, we do not need
    all the paper work the larger organizations require but I think the same
    requirements should hold. If the UG is be responsible, professional and gain
    the respect of the entire OS-9 community, can it do any different?

    > The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find out
    > as much as they can about what the users need, and what they would like
    > to do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

    I agree with you that we must find out what the membership needs and wants.
    My preference is for a questionaire sent to members (maybe part of the MOTD?)
    every year. I can bring this up at the next BOD meeting but I’d suggest you
    contact Carl Boll, UG President (CBJ on Delphi), directly and inform him of
    your needs.

    As to getting information to those working on standards, if the UG follows
    a procedure similar to what I outlined above, every interested party will
    have the opportunity to review the specification being prepared and present
    their views.

    Ed Gresick
    Director – OS-9 UG