[dsdl-discuss] Re: Result of the ballot

My argument Ken is with a no vote on a publicly available international
standard based on information about a non-public activity that was not even
in begun at the time the ballot was submitted. Just because W3C has since
woken up to the danger of there being an ISO standard in this area does not
warrant Canada making this unannounced member-only activitiy a reason for
voting against a publicly announced activity.

I have no problems with Japan's no vote. That is based on clear and
reasonable reasons. However, I consider votes based on unpublished
information to be a moral violation of the spirit of international standards
development and would recommend that Canada review its decision making
processes before making any more votes based on unpublished information.

I have no problems with the way you announced the results, or responded to
the messages sent to the committee during my trip to Canada, when I was not
able to check my personal/standars email. That was above board. (I do have a
personal objection to what I was told by Sperlberg-McQueen about the W3C
work, when he failed to mention the Canadian ballot position that I strongly
suspect he was the architect of, but that's another issue.) I have no
problems with the ballot response as a whole: only with the unprincipled
reference to unpublished information about the unnanounced, still
unscheduled, activity of a non-standards organizstion that the public has no
input at present to as a way to determine a ballot result for a proposed
international standard by a national standard body.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Ken Holman - ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat Manager"
<jtc1sc34@scc.ca>
To: <dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org>; "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>
Cc: "Petr Cimprich" <cimprich@u-turnmediagroup.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: [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)
>
>

--
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)