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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-30 13:46:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ARG process (was += in ada)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:43:02 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vq31ibi8q4fv2d@corp.supernews.com>
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <slrnbno8gc.mc.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnbnoaek.oa.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <lzwubns4v8.fsf@cts.com>
 <bebbba07.0310061641.2ec215c6@posting.google.com>
 <49cbf610.0310070205.2937e71a@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbo5afo.o7.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <BBA885C7.5DECA%yaldnifb@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bebbba07.0310071422.5af7850f@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbo7afh.1rc.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bebbba07.0310091107.6c0c3716@posting.google.com>
 <slrnboco8m.gq.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <g56dnc0OA7_TOBWiU-KYvg@gbronline.com>
 <slrnboi3tb.ho.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3F896BAB.6040804@comcast.net> <BBAF5DEC.5EF10%yaldnifb@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <3F89F4E9.7050601@comcast.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1853
Date: 2003-10-30T15:43:02-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F89F4E9.7050601@comcast.net...
...
> But that gets back to something that is hard to explain to people who
> haven't sat in on an ARG meeting.  It is a very strenous intellectual
> exercise, but we are all concerned with insuring that all possible
> issues are examined before the ARG makes a decision.  If you look at the
> history of some issues, we would meet vote 10-0 for some position and
> delegate someone to write the decision up.  The draft AI would then get
> voted down say 8-3, a new position agreed to, and the process repeated.
>   I'd have to check what the record on a single AI was...

I can't say in general, but since my watch began (1998), the record is
AI95-00147. It was approved at meetings 4 times; the first three, new issues
surfaced afterwards, causing it to go back. It took six years to finish.

                    Randy.