[dsdl-discuss] Re: (off-topic) Splitting up a fast-track standard

G. Ken Holman wrote:
> Fast tracks are different than typical committee developments. I see
> your input as valid committee development decisions that arise from CD
> reviews, culminating in a number of FCD documents representing the
> final version of the specification to be balloted on as a DIS draft
> standard, which is then processed into a final IS standard.
NBs have raised issues of size, scope and legacy. Ecma's responses
clearly indicate on my reading that they expect that ballot resolution
may result in minor changes for the handful of issues raised, where
these are necessary for NB acceptance. I wouldn't assume that they would
not accept a (non-substantive) change like a split if it helped their
big picture objective, though everyone would grumble.
> The committee has been presented with a fast track draft standard
> (DIS), so we vote on it as it has arrived. Section 9.8 of the
> Directives notes that "conditional approval should be submitted as a
> disapproval vote". There appear, however, to be no limits on the
> types of changes one can propose. So I suppose any national body can
> submit anything as changes! It would be up to the ballot resolution
> meeting to determine what to do to reach consensus.
Obviously splitting specs up is not something that would be considered
in the normal course of events, but this is clearly a unique case
(largest spec at the same time?, fast track, controversial, some
overlaps, some legacy) and I think it would be good to at least have a
splitting approach in the toolbox of possible solutions, if needed.
> Note that one cannot read too much into 9.8 regarding disapproving
> votes ... SC34 obtained clarification in section 4 of
> http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0835.htm that national bodies may
> express any comments they wish.
Yes, however for the administrative review phase, ISO Secretariat will
obviously only act on certain of those issues (or in certain process
breakdowns) and the issue brought up by the NBs did not fit into ISO's
criteria for showstoppers. (Constrast with the Chinese/IEEE 802
situation.) So when NBs use their prerogative of bringing up issues
ahead of time, as it were, it gives us a working set of requirements to
get constructive about.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)