This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- To: bkoz at redhat dot com (Benjamin Kosnik)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk, taggart at carmen dot fx dot hp dot com, anderson at freestandards dot org, jim at meyering dot net, keithp at keithp dot com
- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
> I think it is possible to deliver an alternate PAS, but I don't know how
> this would be done, or if this would be necessary or useful.
>
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/proc/deliverables/iso_pas.html
This page isn't relevant to JTC1. You need to download a copy of the
JTC1 directives to find the procedures for delivering a PAS within JTC1.
An organization has to apply to become a PAS submitter. Then, it has
6 months to deliver its first PAS. An extension of 6 months can be
applied for.
One significant difference between JTC1 and other ISO committees is that
a PAS submission does not have to represent the consenus within a working
group. There doesn't need to be a NP. The text need not be developed
through the preparatory stages within a working group.
In my opinion, this process is not conducive to participation by technical
experts as there is little they can do to change the submission, and it
makes reviewing large PAS submissions more difficult.
> Are there minutes of this BOF online (where?)? It would probably be
> useful for the gcc hackers as well. Is the information specific to
> Canada or is it applicable to other national bodies as well?
Sorry, no minutes were taken as far as I know. The session was intended
to be of general interest. Ted Tso discussed in considerable detail
why the U.S. delegation pushed for "Linux" standardization using the FSG
and the PAS process.
I'm willing to act as a contact point for the Canadian SC22 mirror committee
on the LSB 2.0 PAS submission. We will consider any comments received and
possibly include them with the Canadian vote. I'm especially interested
in receiving comments from maintainers affected by this PAS.
I think we need more than a yes/no/abstain vote on this matter. If we have
enough comments, they could lead to comment resolution meeting and an
opportunity to improve the submission. As things stand now, the FSG is
between a rock and a hard place.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)