From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Jul 12 07:24:07 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:21:55 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Two types of diapprove with comments In-reply-to: <9ACE35AA70F0D6418381FB10411DF9030A0C95C8F5@NA-EXMSG-C108.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1184250149-499601830000-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: 1184250149 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: INCITS-V1: Two types of diapprove with comments X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Dave, Dave Welsh wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > When I refer specifically to the Directives on Fast Track, 9.8 Votes on Fast-track DISs, the exact text is "disapproval of the DIS (or DAM) for technical reasons to be stated, with proposals for changes that would make the document acceptable (acceptance of these proposals shall be referred to the NB concerned for confirmation that the vote can be changed to approval);". > > OK, are you saying that is inconsistent with my explanation of "no with comments" as being "yes, but..."? I agree I did not quote the Directives text but I think my explanation is consistent with that text. Yes? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > All the best > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:34 AM > To: Incits-V1 > Subject: INCITS-V1: Two types of diapprove with comments > > Greetings! > > I have gotten two questions off list about the two varieties of no with > comment that were confirmed as options by INCITS so I wanted to post my > understanding of the difference as I think it is a significant one. > > First No with Comments: > > The first, disapprove with technical comments, is like "no and here's > why." but there is no change that would make the no a yes. > > Think of asking your mother if you can go steal a car. You will get no > and here's why. No chance that you will get a yes to go steal a car. > > Second No with Comments (conditional Approval) > > The second, disapprove with technical comments (conditional approval) is > a 'yes, but' sort of response. > > Think of asking your mother if you can borrow her car. She may say yes, > but, you can only have it after 5 PM, must be sure to return it with a > full tank and you have to be home by midnight. > > That is an example of "conditional approval," that is yes with some > conditions attached. > > Admittedly the Directives should have said "yes, but with comments" or > something like that to indicate "conditional approval" but they don't. > Ironic given the quality of most ISO standards that the Directives are > like the cobbler's children who are the only ones in town with no shoes. ;-) > > In summary, conditional approval is "no with comments" and offering a > way to cure the no to become a yes. (Which I think is the common goal of > everyone involved, that is to have the best proposal possible that gets > the yes vote.) > > 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) > > > > > -- 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)