From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,799e6e37c90ca633 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions? Date: 1998/09/28 Message-ID: <6uo763$cv6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 395614563 References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner> <6unmol$vm@top.mitre.org> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.73.133.253 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 28 14:41:07 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6unmol$vm@top.mitre.org>, mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner) wrote: > I agree with the problems noted by both posters: > (a) the process should be opened up to additional opinions > (there should be at least inputs, even if there is no hope > of a vote) > (b) the process should be published so we know who to talk to > about change Well of course you always have the phenomenon of people coming late into the process and wanting to revisit things. That's fine if there are new viewpoints to be added, but I don't think there are in this case, at least I have not seen any. Additional opinions are not really relevant unless they add new information. As for the process being open, it was amazingly open, and there is indeed quite a long record of discussion of this case. Go to the dejanews archives as a first step! -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum