From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Wed Jul 11 14:07:15 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:04:18 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: INCITS-V1: Information on voting options for Friday on DIS 29500 Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: Incits-V1 Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1184187899-485100aa0000-E618Iy X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.8:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Connect: unknown[66.110.197.207] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1184187899 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Information on voting options for Friday on DIS 29500 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Greetings! I have finally assembled what I think is an accurate representation of the options for voting on DIS 29500 on Friday. What I have confirmed with INCITS and what I think is evident from the Directives is explicitly noted below. Possible positions: confirmed with INCITS - Approve as presented - Approve with comments (editorial or other) - Disapprove with technical comments - Disapprove with technical comments (conditional approval) - Abstain with comments /end confirmed with INCITS Note that this is *not* consistent with the charge to V1 which I previously forwarded to the members of V1. In my request to INCITS I noted: Section 3.1.1, JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3, provides in part: > "Abstention" is an appropriate response (with or without comment) if > an NB is not confident that their technical review is sufficient to > cast an "approve" or "disapprove" vote. So abstain with comments is what was not included in the original charge. Further, note that comments are divided into three categories: Editorial Other Technical Only abstention with comments makes no distinction between the types of comments. Or to put it another way, yes with comments is accompanied only by editorial and other comments, not technical comments. (personal opinion) I suspect the reason for the difference in the type of comments is that conditional approval, no with comments, is appropriate where the proposal is favored but needs technical corrections before becoming an IS. As far as what triggers a ballot resolution meeting, I commend for your reading ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0 (http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf), which reads in part: > 13.5 Upon receipt of the notification from the JTC 1 Secretariat > that its SC has been assigned the responsibility for dealing with > a fast-track processed DIS (or DAM), the SC Secretariat shall so > inform the SC NBs, and shall make plans for the handling of > ballot results through the formation of a ballot resolution > group, as follows. The SC Secretariat shall: > > • Schedule a ballot resolution group meeting to consider any comments > on the DIS (or DAM); > > • Appoint a Convener for the ballot resolution group; ISO/IEC JTC 1 > Directives, 5th Edition Version 3.0, 61 > > • Appoint a Project Editor for the DIS (see 13.1, third paragraph). > The Project Editor shall be responsible for producing the final DIS > text in case of acceptance; > > • Notify the SC NBs of the ballot resolution group meeting date(s), > location, Convener and Project Editor. > > In some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution group is > unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign the task directly to the > Project Editor. > > 13.6 Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC > Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs, to any > NBs having voted that are not members of the SC and to the > proposer. The NBs shall be requested to consider the comments > and to form opinions on their acceptability. The SC Secretariat > shall also send notification of the ballot resolution group > meeting to SC NBs, to any NBs having voted that are not members > of the SC and to the proposer. Comments received after the normal > voting period will not be taken into account, except that they > will be submitted to the appropriate SC Secretariat for > consideration at the time of the next review of the IS in > question. > > 13.7 NBs of the relevant SC shall appoint to the ballot > resolution group one or more representatives who are well aware > of the NB’s position. NBs having voted negatively, whether or not > a NB of the relevant SC, have a duty to delegate a representative > to the ballot resolution meeting. > > 13.8 At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be > reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable the > vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 > procedures. > > 13.9 If, after the deliberations of this ballot resolution group, > the requirements of 9.6 are met, the Project Editor shall prepare > the revised DIS (or DAM) and send it to the SC Secretariat who > shall forward it to the ITTF for publication as an IS. For its > initial publication, the document is not required to be in > ISO/IEC format, but can be published in the format of the > submitting organization. > > 13.10 If it is impossible to agree to a text meeting the above > requirements, the proposal has failed and the procedure is > terminated. I have been asked off list if there is an interpretation of "some cases" in the final sentence of 13.5 which reads: "In some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution group is unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign the task directly to the Project Editor." I have not found such an interpretation and the language of the Directives appears to leave that to the discretion of the Secretariat. I say that because 13.6 outlines the purely administrative duties of the Secretariat when ballot results and comments arrive and does not mention any counting of the votes. In fact, the first time a counting of the votes is mentioned is in 13.9, which is in the context of the ballot resolution meeting. I would single out for notice the provision in 13.6 which says that we will be requested to form a position on comments by other NBs. So, we have a lot of conversations before us concerning not only our comments but the comments of others. I have tried to set forth the options for Friday as accurately and fairly as I can. I tried to indicate what parts are opinion on my part and when I am relying upon some portion of the Directives to cite the portion in question. If I am in error on any point, please reply to the list so we can all have the benefit of your correction. Note that I have *deliberately* not addressed the merits of any particular position as my goal was to set for the context within which our vote will take place. I hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)