Minutes of Meeting, 17 February 1996, Philadelphia, PA
Recorded by Jim Moore, Secretary
[Provisional draft - to be approved at next meeting. Drafted 18 Feb; revised 9 Mar and 13 Mar.]
The chair of the TSC, Anthony Gargaro, calls the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 am. Also present are members Steve Carson, Chris Haynes and Jim Moore. Delayed by weather, David Emery arrives later in the morning. Irving Montanez had sent his regrets that his attendance was prevented by the weather.
The agenda prepared by the chair and distributed in advance by email is approved. [As the meeting progressed, we made minor changes in the order of discussion. In these minutes, the discussion is reordered to fit the original agenda. -- jwm]
The minutes of the previous meeting are approved as distributed via email on 15 March 1995.
We review the action items from the previous meeting. Each is reported upon and disposed as described below:
"ACTION: (Carson and Emery) Draft a paper regarding the qualities of 'openness' and 'consensus' in the standards process."
Carson reports that this item was not performed.
"ACTION: (Moore) As a prototype, write a quarterly column for SV [ACM's type 2 publication, StandardView] regarding Software Engineering Standards. Gargaro and Montanez will act as reviewers."
"ACTION: (Carson) Submit columns on graphics standards for republication in SV."
Moore reports that after email discussion, the editor of StandardView said that regular columns were not appropriate for StandardView.
"ACTION: (Moore and Rada) Collaborate on a report of this TSC meeting for publication in SV."
Moore reports that this item was completed. Moore circulated a draft to the TSC for comments. Comments from Rada were incorporated and the draft submitted to Rada for publication. The report was subsequently published.
"ACTION: (Haynes) Draft some ideas for a CACM column regarding "intelligent filtering" of standards information and circulate to TSC for additional ideas."
Haynes reports that this item was completed shortly following the meeting.
"ACTION: (Rada) Draft a letter on behalf of TSC to the editor-in-chief of SV regarding possible methods of collaboration between TSC and SV."
The chair reports that this item was completed shortly after the last meeting.
"ACTION: (Gargaro) Determine the reasons for the apparent delays in the publication of SV and formulate appropriate responses on behalf of the TSC."
The chair reports that this action was completed during the last meeting. During an informal conversation, the question was directed to Joe DeBlasi. DeBlasi replied that the delays were caused because the submitted material required more editorial revision than had been anticipated. It is expected that the publication will be back on schedule by year end 1995.
The chair notes that publication now appears to be on schedule.
"ACTION: (Gargaro) Contact John Klensin and ask him to raise this subject [the new JTC1 procedure for publicly available specifications (PAS)] at the next meeting of the ISSB and make the following points:
The chair reports that this action was completed. Unfortunately, we were unable to generate much interest on the subject at the ISSB. JTC1 TAG briefed the ISSB in September to explain their procedures.
"ACTION: (Gargaro) Write a note on this subject for posting on appropriate newsgroups."
"ACTION: (Carson) Draft a column for CACM on this subject."
The chair reports that these were not done. They seemed unlikely to be effective after the disappointing reaction from the ISSB.
"ACTION: (Haynes) Set up an initial TSC Home Page on the World Wide Web. This responsibility includes negotiating with the ACM for necessary computing resources and obtaining appropriate information from the current FTP and gopher sites. Other TSC members may pass suggestions for additional material to Haynes. A few suggestions are made immediately: the availability of the Home Page should be announced in one of the regular columns in CACM; the "standards FAQ" may be an appropriate description on the organization and relation of standards bodies; the home page should list SIG liaisons and provide links to home pages maintained by the SIGs."
Haynes reports that this was not done. In the period immediately after the last meeting, ACM was not yet prepared to provide the needed computing resources. The situation now seems to have improved and he reports that he will try again.
"ACTION: (All TSC members) Send to Haynes a URL for their personal home page or provide other information regarding how they might be contacted."
This action item is carried forward to the next meeting.
"ACTION: (Gargaro) Request budget for a second TSC meeting during the year. For FY 96, request a two-day meeting to be held in the autumn."
The chair reports that this was completed. The SIG Board did approve the funds during conference call meeting of 3 March. The chair did not convene a meeting, though, because there seemed to be insufficient need.
Rada is not present to give a report. Moore notes that Rada continues to solicit collaborators for columns in CACM.
ACTION: (Secretary) Send a note to members of the TSC asking them to update our list of standards-related publications by members.
We designate Chris Haynes to represent our interests in ACM's newly formed Electronic Services Working Group.
Carson reports that OMG has not yet decided to submit to JTC1 via PAS.
Later in the meeting, Moore gives a presentation describing the activities and plans of IEEE's Software Engineering Standards Committee.
Expiring memberships include those of Gargaro, Moore, Spafford, Emery and Haynes. Moore, Gargaro, Emery and Haynes have indicated that they are willing to remain. Gargaro will consult with Spafford regarding a qualified replacement in the area of computing security and will consult with SIG Chairs regarding suitable candidates. The chair will forward these nominations to the SIG Board for their action.
ACTION: (Gargaro) Solicit candidates for membership in TSC and forward them to the SIG Board for action.
Gargaro reports that we received a cool reception from the ISSB when we approached them with our concerns. It appears, though, few organizations have attempted to use the mechanism. The mechanism has been approved for only a two-year trial period and is now more than a year old.
Carson has found that outside organizations are reluctant to use the PAS process. It doesn't provide them the benefit of improving the technical quality that the normal process provides. They are also afraid that PAS might have a stigma attached to it.
Because of the disappointing response from ISSB, it is suggested that we attempt to establish a more direct liaison with JTC1.
Carson says that three issues expected to be discussed at the next JTC1 meeting are: (1) JTC1 process re-engineering; (2) electronic distribution of standards documents; and (3) making normative references to non-ISO standards.
ACTION (Carson): Explore the possibility of TSC liaison with JTC1 or with JTC1 TAG.
ACTION (Carson): Draft in behalf of the TSC a column on PAS in CACM. It is suggested that the column might deal with some of the following questions:
We break for lunch.
Carson reports that VRML is a 3-D scene description language. In some sense, it is an open version of SGI's Inventor. It has caught on as a method to permit graphic interaction over the Web. The VAG (VRML Architectural Group) would like to make VRML 2.0 into a standard. They have approached SIGGRAPH for this purpose.
Both Carson and Moore wrote email notes explaining some of the legal risks and problems in attempting to perform standardization outside of the context of a recognized SDO. Both notes were poorly received. It is unclear whether SIGGRAPH might attempt to draft a de facto standard.
ACTION (Gargaro): Suggest to Joe DeBlasi that ACM should publish guidelines for what SIGs can and cannot do with respect to participation in standards-making. The guidelines could deal with issues such as the following:
Moore make a presentation on the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee program, including their process standards. The subsequent discussion ranges into the areas of software engineering professionalization, accreditation, education and the future of the ACM. Although the topic is interesting, no conclusions are reached.
ACTION (Moore): Draft article for SV on the SESC program. Circulate it for improvement and suggestions for additional promotion.
We decide to have another meeting in June to discuss topics such as SIG participation in standards-making, PAS, and process standards. We will also write our annual report for the SIG Board. Moore offers to host the meeting at The MITRE Corporation in Reston, Virginia on Fri-Sat, June 28-29, 1996.
The international vote on the draft C++ standard was 10-6. Many substantive objections were submitted by major countries.
We discuss the recommendations of the Advanced Placement Committee that the High School advanced placement exam should be based on the C++ language. Several of us believe that C++ is an inappropriate language for use in high school. Haynes says that a subset of C++ is being developed for this purpose; inheritance is one of the aspects that will be removed. None of us can see the point of teaching C++ without inheritance. Haynes notes that colleges will be reluctant to grant advanced credit based on the AP exam if the high school curriculum omitted subjects, such as inheritance, that would be included in the college curriculum. He believes that Java might be a more appropriate language.
ACTION (Secretary): The secretary is instructed to draft an appropriate resolution on the use of C++ in the AP exam and circulate it via email for the approval of the TSC.
ACTION: (Secretary) Send a note to members of the TSC asking them to update our list of standards-related publications by members.
ACTION (Carson): Explore the possibility of TSC liaison with JTC1 or with JTC1 TAG.
ACTION (Carson): Draft in behalf of the TSC a column on PAS in CACM. It is suggested that the column might deal with some of the following questions:
ACTION (Gargaro): Suggest to Joe DeBlasi that ACM should publish guidelines for what SIGs can and cannot do with respect to participation in standards-making. The guidelines could deal with issues such as the following:
ACTION: (Gargaro) Solicit candidates for membership in TSC and forward them to the SIG Board for action.
ACTION (Moore): Draft article for SV on the SESC program. Circulate it for improvement and suggestions for additional promotion.
ACTION (Secretary): The secretary is instructed to draft an appropriate resolution on the use of C++ in the AP exam and circulate it via email for the approval of the TSC.
We adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Chris Haynes / chaynes@indiana.edu