[dsdl-discuss] Re: FDIS for Part 8

Ken

The text I am asking the committee's consideration to is what was added in response to ballot responses to comments made on the FCD by national bodies. As long as those at the meeting are happy that I have responded to the comments made correctly as far as I am concerned the ballot has been responded to correctly and we can proceed to the next stage, which is FDIS. My use of the word significant was only to draw people's attention to the one sentence that has been changed in the body of the text since the last draft, and to the note that has been copied out of a W3C spec to clarify this change.

Martin

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: G. Ken Holman - ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Manager
  To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org ; dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:49 PM
  Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Re: FDIS for Part 8

  Good morning, Martin,

  Just a note regarding process.

  At 2007-04-24 12:11 +0100, you wrote:
>At the same time I have reviewed the comments received on the
>proposed processing model in Clause 4 and made two significant changes.

  Wouldn't "significant" changes require a new FCD ballot?

>I need to get this FDIS document out for ballot at the weekend if we
>are going to get responses back in time to justify meeting in Montreal,

  There is no committee work to do on an FDIS after it has been
  distributed ... the work is done and all that is left is ITTF ballot
  for approval. An FDIS ballot is not a committee ballot with feedback
  for WG consideration.

  There can be multiple CDs and FCDs, each one balloted with the
  committee considering the results of the ballot ... but eventually
  FDIS text is submitted for FDIS processing without changes or review
  or feedback on the technical content. It is out of the committee
  hands once it is at FDIS.

  My concern is that we shouldn't consider the text final for FDIS if
  significant changes have been made that require committee comment.
  Unfortunately, if you do send this out for a new FCD ballot, the
  period is four months, which is approaching September.

  Directives 12.6.1.2 allows for multiple FCD ballots.

  Directives 12.6.3.9 begins "An FCD shall be advanced to FDIS only if
  the text has been stabilised..." ... and I don't think that is the
  case for Part 8.

  Directives 12.7.1.2 does not allow for any changes of the text of an
  FDIS, and 12.7.2.4 pushes an unapproved FDIS back to WD, not even CD,
  so there is a risk.

  I am aware of the tight deadlines we face due to the timing of parts
  of 19757, but in line with the time constraints we also have to
  follow the rules regarding content.

  Please let me know if you have any questions.

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

  --

  G. Ken Holman Crane Softwrights Ltd.
  ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Standards Council of Canada
  Committee correspondence: mailto:jtc1sc34@scc.ca
  Committee website: http://www.jtc1sc34.org
  Corporate correspondence: mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
  Corporate website: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/a/

  --
  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)

--
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)