From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Mon Jul 16 11:41:49 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:37:51 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: Conditional approval (disapproval with comments) In-reply-to: <469BB55E.2000403@durusau.net> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcfH1cA0UVvwmEWPQrqZs/z6FJnMOAAAOt1g X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Hi Patrick... So then why ask for a "PROOF" of the minutes if correction is not allowed??? Why call them "Draft Minutes" if changes cannot be made??? Why have a motion for "Approval of the Minutes" if they are final in their first version??? > And, as I noted in my first response to Doug's inquiry, minutes are > supposed to be a summary of the meeting and not a transcript of the > meeting. I have not asked for "transcript" to be made, and one cannot help but feel that you are being unreasonable on this topic by aligning yourself with 1 member's false allegation (i.e. Rob) that we are asking for a "transcript" to be recorded and ignoring the requested "PROOF" corrections from two others (i.e. Stephen, Jon) to ensure that the meeting minutes are accurate! I am doing my best to be patient, but it is highly unusual to refuse corrections to meeting minutes; especially when there have been corrections requested and made in prior meetings... I stand by my request that correction be made to the meeting minutes in response to Rex's request for "PROOF" of the "Draft Minutes". Thanks, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:14 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Conditional approval (disapproval with comments) Stephen, Stephen Peront wrote: > Hi Patrick... > > > >> Individual remarks or detailed transcripts need not to be recorded; >> however, any specific statement should be recorded when requested by >> the Chair, group, or a member. >> >> [some text snipped out] >> >> I take that to mean at the time the statement was made and not in >> retrospect. >> > > The text does not specify whether the statement need be requested prior to > the distribution, end of the meeting or otherwise. > > As a member, I am requesting that the statements I mentioned earlier be > recorded in the minutes. I can reiterate if need be. > > Well, I am not sure how that would work. If a request is made at the time of the statement, then the Secretary, Rex in this case, can take down the statement in question and repeat it back to the speaker, in the presence of all present at the meeting. That seems like a fairly accurate way to record a statement by an individual member, group, etc. I think it is a question of notice to the Secretary and others that specific language should be recorded for the minutes for the meeting. You could ask me today about some statement I made yesterday and I could probably confirm the substance of what I said but fairly rarely a word for word account of what I said or what it was in response to with any particularity. And, as I noted in my first response to Doug's inquiry, minutes are supposed to be a summary of the meeting and not a transcript of the meeting. I understand that you feel the minutes do not accurately reflect matters important to you and I am sure if asked, many other members would like to have specifics they recall added as well. I think I have correctly cited the INCITS rule on recording specific remarks and the need to take this up when the minutes of 13 July 2007 are offered for approval. I am not sure what else I can do at this point? Motions to amend the minutes are made in context of the meeting where they are offered for approval. And, until amended, the minutes stand as recorded by the Secretary. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > Thanks, > -Stephen > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] > On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:23 PM > To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org > Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Conditional approval (disapproval with comments) > > Doug, > > Doug Mahugh wrote: > >> Regarding Stephen and Jon's requests for corrections to the minutes, it >> > would be useful for us all to have an understanding of what types of > corrections are appropriate. Patrick, is that something you can provide? > >> >> > Yes, well, at least partially. > > The INCITS rules on minutes are as follows: > > >> *4.3.5 Minutes* >> >> All IOEs, except ad hoc groups, are required to produce minutes of >> their meetings. Minutes shall be distributed within four weeks after >> the adjournment of the meeting. When prepared by someone other than a >> member of the Secretariat staff, the draft minutes shall be reviewed >> by Secretariat staff prior to distribution to the committee. >> >> The required contents of minutes are as follows: >> >> 1. Date(s), location(s), Chair, Secretary, hour of opening and >> adjournment. >> 2. Summary of significant actions taken. >> 3. List of all attendees. >> 4. Approved agenda (or approved changes to draft agenda). >> 5. Approval of previous meeting minutes. >> 6. Each motion seconded and not withdrawn, identifying maker of the >> motion, the fact of a second, and the voting results. >> 7. Future meeting schedule. >> 8. List of action items assigned to members. >> >> Individual remarks or detailed transcripts need not to be recorded; >> however, any specific statement should be recorded when requested by >> the Chair, group, or a member. Records of discussions and actions >> taken pertaining to any topic for which attendance is restricted shall >> not be included in the minutes, except to record that a position was >> developed. >> >> > If we take that as our starting point, then anything not listed in the > contents for minutes probably shouldn't be offered as a correction to > the minutes. > > I would not in particular that "individual remarks" need not be recorded > but that if specifically requested, a specific statement can be. > > I take that to mean at the time the statement was made and not in > retrospect. > > I would call everyone's attention to INCITS rule 4.2.3.1.4 which governs > attendance at meetings where a position is being developed, which says > (in part): > > >> In order to comply with ANSI requirements, while all parties may >> participate in the discussion, only those organizations domiciled in >> the U.S. may vote to establish a U.S. position on TAG matters. >> > > If attendance were restricted, the minutes could only indicate the > results of the decision making process and not any votes or other > matters along the way. > > Does that help? > > Hope you are having a great day! > > Patrick > > > > >> Regards, >> Doug >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] >> > On Behalf Of jon.bosak@sun.com > >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 8:14 AM >> To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org >> Subject: INCITS-V1: Conditional approval (disapproval with comments) >> >> Correction to the minutes of 13 July 2007: >> >> Sun Microsystems specifically requested several times during the >> meeting that the option recorded in the draft minutes as >> "Disapproval with comments" be recorded as "Conditional approval >> (disapproval with comments)." We observed that the language of 9.8 >> in the JTC1 Directives explicitly equates these two forms. That >> request was accepted with no objection. >> >> This change is important to Sun in ensuring that our position is >> correctly represented. We wish to make it completely clear that >> we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete >> agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability >> among different implementations and providing interoperable access >> to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents. >> >> Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based >> on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as >> presently written is technically incapable of achieving those >> goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an >> ISO Standard that would enable them. Sun voted Yes on Conditional >> approval (disapproval with comments) because this is the only one >> of the options we were given that would guarantee that the >> specific changes already agreed upon by consensus in V1 would >> actually be implemented. >> >> We observed during the meeting that according to 9.8, the option >> sometimes described as "No with comments" actually contains an >> explicit promise of approval once "the changes that would make the >> document acceptable" have been implemented. We voted in the >> expectation that those changes will be made and that a version of >> DIS 29500 capable of achieving its objectives would be approved as >> an ISO Standard. We welcome the opportunity to work with others >> during the resolution phase to bring DIS 29500 to a level of >> specification that would enable its approval, and we request that >> our vote for conditional approval be correctly represented in the >> minutes. >> >> Jon >> >> ====================================================== >> Jon Bosak, Distinguished Engineer, Corporate Standards >> Office of Global Government Strategy, Sun Microsystems >> Chair, Universal Business Language Technical Committee >> Member, INCITS V1 and ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 >> jon.bosak@sun.com http://www.sun.com/standards >> ====================================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- 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)