From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Aug 16 19:32:36 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_ladNdsc2aRNevnU5CMqnQA)"
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Llvienna2@aol.com
Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Meeting reminder and revised agenda
Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Cc: leonard.levine@disa.mil
Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
X-Spam-Flag: NO


--Boundary_(ID_ladNdsc2aRNevnU5CMqnQA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

 
 
>> 6.6 Unprocessed comments on DIS 29500
>> 6.7 Processing  other NB comments
>> 6.8 Volunteers for DIS 29500 ad hocs
 
We should note that in order to promote a consensus among INCITS Executive  
Board members, several actions related to the comments were taken by the EB  
itself:
    *   A large number of unprocessed "comments" (the letters of praise, the  
letters of criticism, and my suggestion about harmonization of office  
automation standards) were removed from our consideration.  
    *   In their place, the Executive Board inserted a number of other 
comments:  5 on accessibility from US Department of Homeland Security, 3 on  
security, backward compatibility, and proprietary file formats from US  Department of 
Defense; there may have been vendor comments that were also  inserted at the 
EB but I missed them due to a personal matter.  
    *   An overarching comment from the EB itself that generally re-stated  
the US national board's right to withdraw approval later in the process; there  
may have been other insertions while I was away from the table. I would  
venture this is not a 'technical' question that V1 can address. 
    *   ... 
    *   And the EB made it clear that is was relying on V1 to act as its 
technical  arm by continuing to process these comments.
The comments added by the Department of Defense were set in stone at the  
Assistant Secretary of Defense (DoD CIO) level or above. They may well influence  
how DoD votes. Nevertheless, at the technical level I would be glad to  
"volunteer" to attempt to find out the true technical issues  -- or whether they 
fall under the special rules of the Klingon Empire cited  by our Chair. For 
example, if the committee requests and gives adequate notice,  I would be glad to 
scour the Department for a relevant expert on XML  & Encryption as related to 
DIS 29500 to join our  discussion. 
 
Leonard F. Levine
United States Department of Defense
 
P.S. I was reminded that I should be talking in the name of US DoD rather  
than my agency.  However, for those interested, I still work for the  DoD Exec 
Agent for IT Standards, which happens to be located entirely in  the Defense 
Information Systems Agency.
 
P.P.S. I would urge members to start work as soon as possible on processing  
the technical comments. Otherwise, we could be in the awkward position of  
intensifying our work in the period between Thanksgiving and New Year.
 
In a message dated 8/16/2007 5:25:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
patrick@durusau.net writes:

Greetings!

Just another quick reminder of our teleconference  tomorrow at 1 PM 
Eastern Standard Daylight Savings Time.

A revised  agenda is attached.

Note that I added (and renumbered as appropriate)  item 5 which is a 
report by Rex Jaeschke on his delivery of the V1 report  at the INCITS 
meeting in San Jose. I was unable to attend and Rex was kind  enough to 
"pinch hit" for me as it were. (Sorry, my wife is a baseball  fanatic and 
the terminology bleeds over into my prose from time to  time.)

Suggestion: I think everyone needs to check their calendars  ahead of 
time for September - November since we need to discuss dates for  future 
meetings and in particular either full or ad hoc meetings to  discuss the 
NB comments on DIS 29500.

In that regard, any  suggestions on customary ways to rank how we feel 
about the comments would  be useful as well. In other words, if a comment 
says, for example, that  specified calendar definitions are missing, we 
might say that is a must  fix comment. On the other hand, if a comment 
says that DIS 29500 does not  define the Klingon calendar, we could mark 
that one as ignore/don't care  and so on. I am thinking that would make 
it easier to provide instructions  to delegates to the BRM if we have 
already decided how we feel about the  various comments. Not to mention 
that we could then sort them along that  ranking, etc.

While re-consideration of a comment is always possible, I  would suggest 
that we plan on addressing every comment for ranking once  and only once. 
Perhaps even having them prepared in batches and voting on  the batch as 
a whole, while allowing any member to pull comments out for  further 
discussion. That should help us sort out the ones where there is  any 
serious discussion from those that can be agreed upon as a  group.

I don't have the return date for a response from V1 on the NB  comments 
(which includes our own) but anticipate that we won't have all  the way 
to the end of 2007 to complete that phase of our work.

I  hope everyone is having a great week!

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)






Respectfully, Leonard Levine
("Len")
703-861-4822 cell (best number  including answering machine and pager)
703-242-1339 home
703-681-2613  office



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

--Boundary_(ID_ladNdsc2aRNevnU5CMqnQA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" 
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document 
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&gt; 6.6 Unprocessed comments on DIS 29500<BR>&gt;&gt; 6.7 Processing 
other NB comments<BR>&gt;&gt; 6.8 Volunteers for DIS 29500 ad hocs</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>We should note that in order to promote a consensus among INCITS Executive 
Board members, several actions related to the comments were taken by the EB 
itself:</DIV>
<UL>
  <LI>A&nbsp;large number of unprocessed "comments" (the letters of praise, the 
  letters of criticism, and my suggestion about harmonization of office 
  automation standards) were removed from our consideration. </LI>
  <LI>In their place, the Executive Board inserted a number of other comments: 
  &nbsp;5 on accessibility from US Department of Homeland Security, 3 on 
  security, backward compatibility, and proprietary file formats from US 
  Department of Defense; there may have been vendor comments that were also 
  inserted at the EB but I missed them due to a personal matter.&nbsp;</LI>
  <LI>An overarching comment from the EB itself&nbsp;that generally re-stated 
  the US national board's right to withdraw approval later in the process; there 
  may have been other insertions while I was away from the table. I would 
  venture this is not a 'technical' question that V1 can address.</LI>
  <LI>...</LI>
  <LI>And the EB made it clear that is was relying on V1 to act as its technical 
  arm by continuing to process these comments.</LI></UL>
<DIV>The comments added by the Department of Defense were set in stone at the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (DoD CIO) level or above. They may well influence 
how DoD votes. Nevertheless, at the technical level I would be glad to 
"volunteer" to attempt&nbsp;to find out&nbsp;the&nbsp;true technical issues 
--&nbsp;or whether they fall under the special rules of the Klingon Empire cited 
by our Chair. For example, if the committee requests and gives adequate notice, 
I would be glad to&nbsp;scour the Department&nbsp;for a relevant expert on XML 
&amp; Encryption as related to&nbsp;DIS 29500 to join our 
discussion.&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Leonard F. Levine</DIV>
<DIV><EM>United States Department of Defense</EM></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>P.S. I was reminded that I should be talking in the name of US DoD rather 
than my agency.&nbsp; However, for those interested, I still work for the 
DoD&nbsp;Exec Agent for IT Standards, which happens to be located entirely in 
the Defense Information Systems Agency.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>P.P.S. I would urge members to start work as soon as possible on processing 
the technical comments. Otherwise, we could be in the awkward position of 
intensifying our work in the period between Thanksgiving and New Year.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 8/16/2007 5:25:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
patrick@durusau.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT 
  style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 
  size=2>Greetings!<BR><BR>Just another quick reminder of our teleconference 
  tomorrow at 1 PM <BR>Eastern Standard Daylight Savings Time.<BR><BR>A revised 
  agenda is attached.<BR><BR>Note that I added (and renumbered as appropriate) 
  item 5 which is a <BR>report by Rex Jaeschke on his delivery of the V1 report 
  at the INCITS <BR>meeting in San Jose. I was unable to attend and Rex was kind 
  enough to <BR>"pinch hit" for me as it were. (Sorry, my wife is a baseball 
  fanatic and <BR>the terminology bleeds over into my prose from time to 
  time.)<BR><BR>Suggestion: I think everyone needs to check their calendars 
  ahead of <BR>time for September - November since we need to discuss dates for 
  future <BR>meetings and in particular either full or ad hoc meetings to 
  discuss the <BR>NB comments on DIS 29500.<BR><BR>In that regard, any 
  suggestions on customary ways to rank how we feel <BR>about the comments would 
  be useful as well. In other words, if a comment <BR>says, for example, that 
  specified calendar definitions are missing, we <BR>might say that is a must 
  fix comment. On the other hand, if a comment <BR>says that DIS 29500 does not 
  define the Klingon calendar, we could mark <BR>that one as ignore/don't care 
  and so on. I am thinking that would make <BR>it easier to provide instructions 
  to delegates to the BRM if we have <BR>already decided how we feel about the 
  various comments. Not to mention <BR>that we could then sort them along that 
  ranking, etc.<BR><BR>While re-consideration of a comment is always possible, I 
  would suggest <BR>that we plan on addressing every comment for ranking once 
  and only once. <BR>Perhaps even having them prepared in batches and voting on 
  the batch as <BR>a whole, while allowing any member to pull comments out for 
  further <BR>discussion. That should help us sort out the ones where there is 
  any <BR>serious discussion from those that can be agreed upon as a 
  group.<BR><BR>I don't have the return date for a response from V1 on the NB 
  comments <BR>(which includes our own) but anticipate that we won't have all 
  the way <BR>to the end of 2007 to complete that phase of our work.<BR><BR>I 
  hope everyone is having a great week!<BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR>-- <BR>Patrick 
  Durusau<BR>patrick@durusau.net<BR>Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34<BR>Acting 
  Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)<BR>Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 
  (Topic Maps)<BR>Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 
  26300)<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12">Respectfully, 
</FONT><FONT lang=0 face="Arial Black" color=#000000 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" 
PTSIZE="12"><B><I>Leonard Levine</FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Wingdings color=#000000 
size=3 PTSIZE="12"></B></I> </FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=3 
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12">("Len")<BR>703-861-4822 cell (best number 
including answering machine and pager)<BR>703-242-1339 home<BR>703-681-2613 
office</FONT></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">Get a sneak peek of the all-new <A title="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982" href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982" target="_blank">AOL.com</A>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_ladNdsc2aRNevnU5CMqnQA)--

