From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Tue Aug 14 13:38:47 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_X1/MuNQwBtBqCH22WnSE4Q)" Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:26:42 -0400 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: FW: INCITS-V1: Material related to August 17 Agenda Topic - Category A Liaison with the XML Guild letter ballot In-reply-to: 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 08/14/2007 04:26:43 PM, Serialize complete at 08/14/2007 04:26:43 PM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_X1/MuNQwBtBqCH22WnSE4Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > > The objection leading to this mandatory second vote may have some > merit. > > While it does seem appropriate that JTC1/SC34 and the XML Guild > > establish a liaison relationship, the proposed Category A > "liaisonship" > > may not be the correct one. > > > > SC34 currently has Category A liaison with OASIS and Ecma. Is the XML > > Guild on a par with them (I am thinking here in the context of whether > > > the XML Guild has their own technical committees working on standards > > and their own accompanying support structures)? Also to be considered > > here is whether the XML Guild should be able to nominate organizations > > > to be JTC1 Registration Authorities, which a Category A can do. > > > > I suspect that the more appropriate liaison category for the XML Guild > > > should have been Category C. > > My understanding is that Ecma has a Class A Liaison with JTC1 and that is their basis for making Fast Track Submissions. OASIS is a registered PAS Submitter and that allows them to make PAS Submissions. The additional liaison relationships that these organizations have with SC34 are incidental to these submitter roles. The additional support infrastructure and TC's that OASIS and Ecma have are to support their role as PAS and Fast Track submitters. This is entirely different from SC liaison status which grants no such privileges. -Rob --Boundary_(ID_X1/MuNQwBtBqCH22WnSE4Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> >
> > The objection leading to this mandatory second vote may have some
> merit.
> > While it does seem appropriate that JTC1/SC34 and the XML Guild
> > establish a liaison relationship, the proposed Category A
> "liaisonship"
> > may not be the correct one.
> >
> > SC34 currently has Category A liaison with OASIS and Ecma. Is the XML
> > Guild on a par with them (I am thinking here in the context of whether
>
> > the XML Guild has their own technical committees working on standards
> > and their own accompanying support structures)? Also to be considered
> > here is whether the XML Guild should be able to nominate organizations
>
> > to be JTC1 Registration Authorities, which a Category A can do.
> >
> > I suspect that the more appropriate liaison category for the XML Guild
>
> > should have been Category C.
> >


My understanding is that Ecma has a Class A Liaison with JTC1 and that is their basis for making Fast Track Submissions.   OASIS is a registered PAS Submitter and that allows them to make PAS Submissions.  The additional liaison relationships that these organizations have with SC34 are incidental to these submitter roles.  

The additional support infrastructure and TC's that OASIS and Ecma have are to support their role as PAS and Fast Track submitters.  This is entirely different from SC liaison status which grants no such privileges.


-Rob --Boundary_(ID_X1/MuNQwBtBqCH22WnSE4Q)--