From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Jul 12 08:38:26 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_KveIPXS6WbUVcx0J4pcxtg)"
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:36:30 -0400
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Two types of diapprove with comments
In-reply-to: <46962DAB.2000005@durusau.net>
Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release
6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 07/12/2007 11:36:30 AM,
Serialize complete at 07/12/2007 11:36:30 AM
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_KveIPXS6WbUVcx0J4pcxtg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thanks for the explanation.
You can see this as well in the sample DIS ballot given in JTC1
Directives, Annex G18 (page 112):
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0828.pdf
The text clearly says, "If a national body votes affirmatively, it shall
not submit comments. If a national body finds the DIS unacceptable, it
shall vote negatively and state the technical reasons." The ballot then
proceeds to present a checkbox for "We approve the technical content of
the draft" with an optional additional checkbox for "with comments
(editorial or other) appended".
This appears to be contradictory -- if you vote yes, can you or can you
not submit comments? I think this is made clear my the text of the ballot
where it clarifies that a yes vote allows only editorial or other
comments, not technical comments.
A no vote on the other hand is, "We disapprove for the technical reasons
stated", with an additional option for "Acceptance of specified technical
modifications will change our vote to approval."
My recommendation is to vote "No with comments", but not to check the
"Acceptance of specified technical modifications will change our vote to
approval" option. Why? Because I do not believe the Ecma's or our review
has been sufficient to find anything but a small portion of the grave
errors in this specification. I've done my best to write down the
problems I've found, as have others, and we've all worked hard to discuss
what has been reported. So this is not for lack of effort on our part.
But it is also a fact that we have not been able to conduct anything close
to a thorough review. I can open to almost any page of this specification
and find serious ambiguities, undefined behaviors and outright errors.
I've reported what I could, based on the time permitted us, but this is
just the tip of the iceberg. Merely fixing the reported errors will still
leave an enormous number of problems in the standard. I'm operating on
the cockroach theory of quality here. If you see a few, there are
certainly many. Based on the defects I've seen and reported so far, I am
convinced that this DIS needs to be returned for comprehensive review and
editing within Ecma, after which it may be resubmitted for JTC1 NB review.
OOXML, as we received it, was not ready for a DIS ballot, and should never
have been submitted to JTC1 in this state.
Regards,
-Rob
___________________________
Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group
email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 07/12/2007 09:33:31 AM:
> 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)
>
--Boundary_(ID_KveIPXS6WbUVcx0J4pcxtg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thanks for the explanation.
You can see this as well in the sample
DIS ballot given in JTC1 Directives, Annex G18 (page 112):
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0828.pdf
The text clearly says, "If
a national body votes affirmatively, it shall not submit comments. If a
national body finds the DIS unacceptable, it shall vote negatively and
state the technical reasons." The ballot then proceeds to present
a checkbox for "We approve the technical content of the draft"
with an optional additional checkbox for "with comments (editorial
or other) appended".
This appears to be contradictory -- if you
vote yes, can you or can you not submit comments? I think this is
made clear my the text of the ballot where it clarifies that a yes vote
allows only editorial or other comments, not technical comments.
A no vote on the other hand is, "We
disapprove for the technical reasons stated", with an additional option
for "Acceptance of specified technical modifications will change
our vote to approval."
My recommendation is to vote "No with
comments", but not to check the "Acceptance of specified technical
modifications will change our vote to approval" option. Why?
Because I do not believe the Ecma's or our review has been sufficient
to find anything but a small portion of the grave errors in this specification.
I've done my best to write down the problems I've found, as have
others, and we've all worked hard to discuss what has been reported. So
this is not for lack of effort on our part. But it is also a fact
that we have not been able to conduct anything close to a thorough review.
I can open to almost any page of this specification and find serious
ambiguities, undefined behaviors and outright errors. I've reported
what I could, based on the time permitted us, but this is just the tip
of the iceberg. Merely fixing the reported errors will still leave
an enormous number of problems in the standard. I'm operating on
the cockroach theory of quality here. If you see a few, there are
certainly many. Based on the defects I've seen and reported so far,
I am convinced that this DIS needs to be returned for comprehensive review
and editing within Ecma, after which it may be resubmitted for JTC1 NB
review.
OOXML, as we received it, was not ready for
a DIS ballot, and should never have been submitted to JTC1 in this state.
Regards,
-Rob
___________________________
Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group
email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 07/12/2007
09:33:31 AM:
> 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)
>
--Boundary_(ID_KveIPXS6WbUVcx0J4pcxtg)--