On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:35:02AM +0100, Cathal A. Ferris wrote:
<snipped>
> Read into this what you will. I'm not happy with the whole process at
> all, but I'm not sure what we can do here. Maybe we missed a good chance
> to get the voice we needed because we didn't examine the proposed
> standard in time to get more technical issues in, and to raise the
> question of the duplication of prefectly good standards, and a lack of
> implementation of the standard to allow the fasttrack process.
>>> Cathal.
<snipped remainder>
Given that they just voted on the entire remainder of technical issues
with the standard and the NSAI just accepted that, then it would hardly
have made any difference how many other issues with the standard were
raised.
It appears to me that the process by which the NSAI decided everything
was sufficiently dealt with, was seriously flawed. Any standard that
cannot have all technicially issues easily dealt with "Individually"
within the given time frame should not be accepted under any fast track
process. It boggles the mind how any standards body cannot see that.
--
Darragh
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
