From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada policy enforcement
Date: 1996/03/21
Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <31515445.28DB@lfwc.lockheed.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4iir4c$koa$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com
N. L. Sizemore wrote:
>
> The question: Given the legal status of the Ada mandate as both
> public law and regulation, why has DOD not only been lax in
> enforcement, but allowed wodespread use of a language not even on
> the list of DOD approved alternate languages?
I can't answer the core of your question (and agree it's a good question),
but I can pass on one item: There are apparently conflicting legal
opinions as to whether the Congressional part of the mandate expired with
the appropriations act to which it was attached. So, it's a matter of
opinion as to whether Ada is still public law.
As for regulation, there is also some ambiguity about the extent of
the Ada mandate, given the revised wording of DoDI 500.2. Hopefully,
this ambiguity will be better explained with the release of some of
the follow-on regulations (which will be out Real Soon Now).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-03-21 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4iir4c$koa$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
1996-03-18 0:00 ` Ada policy enforcement Richard Pitre
1996-03-21 0:00 ` Ken Garlington [this message]
1996-03-21 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-03-22 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1996-03-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-03-22 0:00 ` Robert Munck
1996-03-22 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-03-23 0:00 ` Michael Feldman
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Michael Feldman
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-03-29 0:00 ` David Weller
1996-03-25 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-03-27 0:00 ` AdaWorks
1996-03-25 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-03-23 0:00 ` AdaWorks
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox