<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><title>COMMENTS PLEASE: Why I'm opposed to having an extra WG4 teleconference in January 2012</title><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Near the end of the 2011-11-29 teleconference, Murata-san proposed that we schedule an extra teleconference in January to deal with Part 3 issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Although I have no problem with WG4 working to improve Part 3, I object to having this extra call, for the following reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>1 . As I asked on the recent call, why is fixing Part 3 issues so time-critical? We’ve heard from a number of members that at the least some things need to be clarified, tweaked, and maybe even rewritten. However, I have seen no evidence from any marketplace-relevant consumer or producer that the failure to fix Part 3 in the very near future will cause problems. Whatever the fixed Part 3 contains, it’s at least a couple of years away from being adopted/published. And given that the major implementers have a 2-4-year product cycle, and aren’t likely to plan on implementing any feature that is not yet approved, changes in that Part could be at least 5 years away from appearing in their implementations. So, what’s the business case for being in a hurry? Haven’t complaints in the past been about the haste in which the original ECMA-376 was produced?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2. Earlier this year, WG4 members deliberately chose to reduce the number of Face-to-Face (F2F) meetings from 4/year to 3/year. In so doing, they gave up at least 20 hours of non-administrative meeting time/year, which is equivalent to 10-12 teleconferences (allowing for the overhead of administration on each call). Presumably, WG4 members figured that they didn’t need this extra time, so why now, fewer than 6 months after we reduced meeting frequency, should we start expanding again?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3. Regarding F2F meetings, rarely have we actually used all the time we’ve assigned for them. If we plan and prepare properly, it seems to me that we’ll have ample time to discuss Part 3 issues (as well as other things) in the 3-full-day F2F in Prague.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>4. We have a teleconference scheduled for 2012-01-05. Right now, the main agenda item for that meeting is dealing with comments from the AMD2 ballot. Assuming there are few such comments, if any, we may well have time to also discuss Part 3. Someone suggested that by having an extra call, Alex (who has interest/expertise in this area and who is not expected to be in Prague) might be able to participate. As we and he have known since Busan about the January meeting date, why not see if he can participate in that call?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>5. As I’ve been posting in the proposed Business Plan on the wiki, we need to have a defensible plan and timeline so members can each establish their own priorities w.r.t resource allocation. For members who don’t have a day job or who are paid to participate specifically on standards committees, it’s usually not a problem to schedule extra calls at short notice, but that is not the real world for most members, most of whom already do NOT participate on calls.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>6. I believe that the scheduling of extra teleconferences should be used in special/emergency cases only. For example, we might be required to form a position within a short time constraint for JTC 1 or a liaison, or we might have to deal with an unexpectedly large number of comments on a ballot. As for the rest, we should make a sensible business plan with time line and stick to it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rex<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>