Vendor representatives on committee

[Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages]

In article <1989Nov20.124013.28617 at algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey at algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
....
>
>Actually, if no one on X3J11 had put forward the views of the major
>vendors, X3J11 could not have performed its consensus building
>function.  And if you are not going to build consensus, why bother
>having a committee?  If no one had advocated the selfish narrow views
>of special interests, the work of X3J11 could not have been done.
>This is why many of the representatives were invited and why they were
>sent.
>
>And of course, the special interests are paying for the salary of
>their representives, and their expenses.  If after that, their point
>of view went unspoken, wouldn't that be a real betrayal?
....

I'm part of X3J3, which operates under somewhat different rules than
J11. In J3 there is a clear legal distinction between being an individual or
being the formal rep of a company. the latter costs more, but allows
greater lattitude in who may attend to represent the company.

I am sure that several of the vendors on J11 are also huge users of C
(all unixish vendors, for example), so there is not necessarily
clearly diverging interests.

Keith H. Bierman    |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman at sun.com
It's Not My Fault   |	MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* 
I Voted for Bill &  | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group            
Opus                | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"

"There is NO defense against the attack of the KILLER MICROS!"
			Eugene Brooks