[dsdl-discuss] Re: Result of the ballot

Good morning, Martin,

At 2007-08-12 11:46 +0100, Martin Bryan wrote:
>Given that the Canadian "excuse" for the no vote was "The W3C XSL WG
>is considering streaming requirements for a future version of XSLT.
>In fact some of the STX authors have joined the W3C XSL WG to work
>on this topic. Canada feels that it may be pre-mature to adopt this
>work as a CD." AND given that W3C has never publically announced
>that they intended to produce a streaming version of XSL I am
>extremely angry at the Canadian ballot response.

It is unfortunate that you are angry. National bodies arrive at
their own decisions and are welcome to make comments. While I
personally was not involved at the committee level in order to debate
the Canadian position, the Canadian comments do not appear to violate
any rules about voting responses.

Reviewing our correspondence earlier this year I note:

At 2007-05-09 19:00 +0100, Martin Bryan wrote:
>Yes, there was no point in putting Part 6 into ISO format until we
>have reviewed it for the first time. Turning it into ISO format will
>require the complete remarkup of the document, which needs someone
>to have spare time to do it. At present none of us with experience
>of the format have any spare time as we are all supposed to be doing
>other things. Later in the year we'll have time to add all the bunce
>that ISO requires for a standard.

I submit that you've achieved your objective: you have received a
first review by national bodies. The project is not cancelled, it
just can't (yet) go to FCD. What is the problem? I do not recall
seeing any supportive or justification-related remarks being added to
the W3C specification to help national bodies understand the context
of the STX document being submitted as a part of DSDL. Without
guidance from WG1, then, national bodies will form their own opinions
about the work.

At 2007-08-12 11:46 +0100, Martin Bryan wrote:
>The first I heard about the W3C work was privately from
>Sperlberg-McQueen on Thursday, and I forced them to publically admit
>what they were up to at Extreme last Friday.
>
>If I had known then about the Canadian response

The ballot was due August 2, so I processed and distributed the
results the night of August 5 so that Monday morning all members had
the results in hand. I note in the opening paragraph "we have the
ballot results for N0862".

Note that as a courtesy Sunday evening I wrote a personal response to
Mohamed's note, copying you, regarding the voting response. That
note of mine is copied below my sig below. I thought it would be
important for you to know the results. In my note to you I cite
Canada's response. I don't know what more I could have done.

>to the ballot I would certainly have given Micheal a strong piece of
>my mind, rather than agreeing to submit user requirements to them
>for their standard, as we did for XProc.
>
>I would personally suggest that WG1 resubmit STX for reballot rather
>than withdraw it following this "spoiling" tactic from Canada.

There is no cause for it to be withdrawn at this stage, nor do I
perceive the Canadian response as a spoiling tactic. You solicited
feedback without setting a context for the work, people are free to
interpret whatever context they may perceive. You now have feedback
and are welcome to continue working at the CD stage. I note the
following in the ballot tally:

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0899rev2.htm
>the project status changes to 30.60. Project Editors are requested
>to review comments and strongly consider disapproved votes. Please
>advise the Secretariat regarding (1) the change to status 30.92 or
>30.98, and (2) the next project status and anticipated date that
>project status will change.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

At 2007-08-12 11:46 +0100, Martin Bryan wrote:
>Petr, we will need to produce a detailed set of use cases for and
>ISO stream-based service that clearly shows what we wish to achieve
>that the W3C is unable to achieve.

Sounds like an excellent idea that would provide exactly the kind of
context that national bodies would need to make an informed decision
regarding the progress of the DSDL work.

>Could you please produce this by early November so that we can
>discsuss it in detail at our December meeting in Kyoto. (It needs to
>be circulated 4 weeks before the meeting on 7th December.) Thanks

I hope this has shown that the process has worked as intended. I
don't think we can expect blind approval from all national bodies
when the working group's intentions are not well understood outside
of the committee.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

>Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:18:49 -0400
>To: "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>, "Martin Bryan"
><martin@is-thought.co.uk>
>From: "G. Ken Holman - ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Manager"
><jtc1sc34@scc.ca>
>Subject: Re: Result of the ballot
>Cc: "Petr Cimprich" <cimprich@u-turnmediagroup.com>
>
>Hi Mohamed!
>
>The ballot failed. There were only three counting votes and the one
>negative vote brought the negative votes over 25%.
>
>This doesn't mean the project is cancelled (though WG1 can choose to
>do so), it just means that it cannot progress to the next stage of
>balloting and must repeat at the CD level (which I thought was the
>anticipated action anyway).
>
>The negative vote came from Canada ... I'm not participating in the
>committee work at this time.
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
>At 2007-08-04 18:17 +0200, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>>Hi Martin,
>>
>>I just saw that the ballot for ISO/IEC CD 19757-6 was due to 2007-08-02
>>
>>What are the results ?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mohamed

--
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)