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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e276c1ed16429c03
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.osn.de!diablo2.news.osn.de!news.belwue.de!LF.net!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular!
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:48:00 +0200
Message-ID: <878w1fy3lb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <i93mac$73v$1@speranza.aioe.org> <op.vk5njxfwule2fv@garhos>
	<4cc6753c$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1010261417580.19777@Bluewhite64.example.net>
	<4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1010271051280.20224@Bluewhite64.example.net>
	<4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <op.vk85a5ivule2fv@garhos>
	<4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<19rlit851kct1$.db26uwez2yg7$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4cc94547$0$23752$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<i904ghveib4a.1nhkwbzed3fkv.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4cc9bf12$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<15lnc6vv8z3hc$.1oi6i03umest8$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<871v7aqcpq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<13rgisoyxwkb2$.1dpflsd9zyiz5.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4cca091e$0$7655$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<4h6j3lfp7x5l.zqrg45o56ci3$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4cca9195$0$6978$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
	<87hbg46mcz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<4ccc1681$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: idssi.enyo.de 1288460880 15770 172.17.135.6 (30 Oct 2010 17:48:00
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UqaxlqQYQlT9s896oNdfMCGCxHQ=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15948
Date: 2010-10-30T19:48:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* Georg Bauhaus:

> On 10/30/10 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I suspect that when they [DIN] talk about work on standardization,
>> they refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the
>> technical contents.
>
> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
> get what a standard is expected to be?

I've got trouble parsing this paragraph.

Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting
documents aren't freely available so that programmers have easy access
to them.  It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight
processes, either.