[dsdl-discuss] Re: next meetings?

From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Date: Tue Jun 12 2007 - 00:59:08 UTC

Alex Brown said:
> Rick hi
>
>> Oh, lets have that in Sydney too! What fun.
>
> Personally, I find the idea of a Sydney meeting to coincide with a
> publishing conference very attractive!

Yes, we are closer for Asians but still farther for Africans and
Europeans. I think US East Coast and Japan/Korea/Singapore/Hong
Kong/Malaysia are the two bands that cause the least maximum travel. (For
me it is worse, since I won't travel more than about 12 hours at a time
due to health reasons now. So it takes quite a while to get to West Coast
or Europe.)

>> I'd expect it would be in Redmond.
>
> Hmm. I think there might be a perception at large that the meeting would
> need a more neutral venue. Like the Moon.

Are national delegates swayed by location?

>> I don't see how the ballot
>> resolution
>> meetings can possibly work, actually. Many unusual and poor countries
>> will
>> vote "no with comments", and if the meetings are in Redmond or Europe
>> that rules out the participation of many countries: what happens to
>> their
>> votes then...can they send proxies?
>
> That is not allowed for AFAICS, though JTC 1 strongly encourages
> countries that have voted no to send delegates.

But am I right in thinking that a "no with comments" vote cannot become a
"yes" vote unless there is attendance at the meeting. So the technical
issues that a smaller country might raise could be in fact resolved, but
without any effect since the BRM is the only forum.

It seems to me that a nation that cannot send a delegate to the BRM should
not vote "no with comments", because it is a futile vote: they just must
use the up/down "yes" or "no" or "abstain".

Before I was aware of the rule changes, it looked to me like Open XML
would get accepted, because NBs had time to look at the changes from the
BRM and vote from home if their issues had been met. But with the
Directives changes so that votes are taken at the BRM I am not at all
confident that peripheral NBs will be able to participate effectively.

I'll have to look at the Directives again though: can the BRM deem an
issue raised by a "no with comments" from an NB to have been resolved, and
therefore override/ignore/convert the "no with comments" to something else
(abstain? yes?) -- it seems odd, but the new BRM rules are odd and biased
against peripheral NBs.

>> The only way I can see the Ballot Resolutions not descending into
> farce
>> is
>> if the are held using some kind of teleconferencing or virtual
> meeting.
>> Even co-located meetings in say Redmond and Delhi would be better.
>>
>> I have already told some people in SC34 and at MS that I think virtual
>> meetings are essential; I hope someone goes ahead with it but it seems
>> to
>> far ahead.
>
> This is of course, a trail WG1 has been blazing :-)
>
> But is the technology up to handling effectively the potentially large
> number of virtual participants, strong opinions, length of time, and
> degree of technical detail the BRM would entail?

If the interested parties provided the right facilities, it might be
feasible. I think a lot depends on the discipline of the comments, whether
they go off onto a tangent as if this is some ab initio spec rather than a
fast-tracked external one, or try to do maintenance upfront.

Cheers
Rick

--
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)
Received on Tue Jun 12 02:09:56 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 12 2007 - 08:13:01 UTC