Who is the "Iris committee"

I have seen this a number of time in the last few post. So who is this “iris committee”?

Andrew Penhorwood

we never asked the parties involved in that comitee if it is ok to communicate their involvement with this. Have in mind that for a company, that is for example in relations with Adobe, it is not in their interest that everybody knows their involvement in this. So i will share no names without having the ok of the party.
What i can say, i had one vote!

Maybe anyone who was involved and is happy for it to be known can step forward here. FYI I wasn’t involved.

My understanding is that the cabal comprised Mr Red, Mr Green, Mr Blue and Mr Purple, and perhaps a coupla others who’s names were never mentioned in the one transcript I know was leaked(*).

As far as I know, Mr Green is still under NDA, so unless that’s lifted, then he would not be at liberty to comment too directly on these mechanisations, even if he wanted to. And, I should think, the same would apply to everyone else too.


Adam

(*) very oblique reference. I suspect one reader of this will get it.

Link to Iris document

I do remember seeing this sometime around the fork from railo to lucee.

Ok, I get that @micstriit currently doesn’t have permission to publish the names because it was never asked of them. That’s fair enough.

How about, in the sense of transparency of this process, @micstriit or anyone else in an official LAS function or being a member or whatever obtains that permission.

I’m serious, it’s a bit of a joke that we’re talking about a group of people having made recommendations for an open-source language that’s supposed to be community-driven (as @modius) has reinforced in another thread and the names are camouflaged.

1 Like

Just in case people are not following the language spec thread: @adam_cameron has “outed” himself as voter 1. Thanks for that, @adam_cameron.

Was this a one-time meeting or is it an ongoing thing? Were there any other resources produced besides the spreadsheet linked above? Were the answers on that sheet used to reach a consensus on any of those topics?

My involvement in it was fairly brief… a few emails and meetings (Skype) periodically over the period of a few months, last year. That spreadsheet is probably a reasonable summary of everything, to the point I ceased my involvement.

TBH I thought it just died away, so was quite surprised to see that it continued brewing and became Lucee. Or “will become” Lucee.


Adam

FWIW, I was “Voter4” on the tags (where you’ll note the Iris committee were fewer in number) and “Voter6” on the other sheets in the spreadsheet (when there were eight members).

Just as with the previous “CFML Advisory Committee”, the Iris process was fairly slow and tedious because that’s how language standardization tends to be. If you can itemize everything that needs a decision, and can get a timely vote from everyone, then you can at least dispense with the items you all agree on.

If you have items where the committee doesn’t agree, then you have to have a discussion and see whether you can reach consensus. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and let the implementer make a decision (although expect some decisions to be heavily criticized later on if the disagreement was intense – which it sometimes is in language design).

And, no, I’m not “back” in general. I just finally decided to chime in on this thread because of the speculation around the “secret committee”.

1 Like

@seancorfield, thanks for providing the info re your identity in the process.

Now waiting for @micstriit and LAS to take the necessary steps to get the other people to reveal their involvement too (cc: @modius)

1 Like

I can confirm I have had no involvement in the Iris steering committee.

For the record, while this thread might be of political interest, it doesn’t really change the way forward. We have been through a pretty comprehensive consultation process with respect to the ideation of the Lucee Language concept. We now need to review and refine those outcomes – we can’t rehash the whole process again.

We should be discussing specific aspects of the initial implementation.

3 Likes

FWIW, I don’t think that LAS have any duty to “get the other people to reveal their involvement” and I agree with @modius that even tho’ this is a meta thread, it doesn’t really do anything to move the language discussions forward.

I agree with you that there’s no “legal” duty to do that.

However if LAS decided to NOT even approach people, it’d leave a very bad taste in my opinion as I (and maybe others) would be wondering what needs to be kept under the carpet here.

I have the OK for 2 other parties, that is Luis Majano and Igal.
We did not communicate this at this stage because we assumed that would do more harm than good, the intention of iris was to make a new independent product, so people would be for sure very uncertain about the future of Railo.

The idea of Iris is also nothing new btw, we talked about this for years already, before we called it “htmlX”.

Micha

Thx @micstriit - could you also please provide which “Voter {n}” each of them is?

It’s complicated , the order is not the same for every sheet, because the parties added themself :wink:

Luis was voter 3 in functions and for the rest voter 5.
Sean was voter 4 in functions and for the rest voter 6.
Micha was voter 2 in functions and for the rest voter 4.
Igal is 2 but has not voted for tags.
Adam is always 1.

And I am another of the voters. Omg!

Mark Drew

  • Sent by typing with my thumbs.

Also, I don’t know what voter I was. I can’t remember. I am not trying to obfuscate or keep secrets from @agentK . You can try beating it out of me… but I still don’t know. Probably all the bad choices.

1 Like

That was me, Mark, and you know it!


Adam

1 Like