<div dir="ltr">I think historically ANSI did languages.<div><br></div><div>But, I don't know specifically why IEEE became the standards body for POSIX. I did participate for a while in the IEEE standards process (not POSIX, but something else), and I knew it as a large, very active, well managed organization, always eager to take on new things (such as the thing that I was engaged in). So maybe that was one reason.</div><div><br></div><div>Maybe a greater reason is that the part of IEEE standards that did software was chaired by a person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm sure DEC had a strong interest in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sure that it didn't go completely wild and negate DEC's huge head start in selling machines to run UNIX.</div><div><br></div><div>Marc</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22 PM segaloco via TUHS <<a href="mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org">tuhs@tuhs.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication of UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as X3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. Was there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI instead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference in publishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the track to an international standard seems to lead to the same organizations.<br>
<br>
- Matt G.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><i>My new email address is <a href="mailto:mrochkind@gmail.com" target="_blank">mrochkind@gmail.com</a></i></div></div></div>