<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 14.02.5004.000">
<TITLE>WG4 Business Plan: Parts 1 and 4 Maintenance</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">I wrote, “</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">I propose then that for the foreseeable future maintenance of Parts 1 and 4 be limited to DR processing and that the next COR set for these Parts not be produced for at least two years from the date of the COR2 set closure (2011-09-28).</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">”</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Murata-san replied, “</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">The convener sees no rationales for this proposal, especially because some important defects about fonts have been on the table for more than 2 years.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">”</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">What I am suggesting is simply that we continue the approach we’ve used</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">for</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> two editions thus far: Produce a base standard, then produce a COR and/or AMD, and then produce a consolidated base standard. In theory, this has been a 2-year cycle, and would have given us editions of 29500 in 2008, 2010, and 2012. However, do to contra</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">d</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">ictions we found between COR1 and AMD1, we took a lot</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">longer to pro</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">duce the 2nd edition, and</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">what was going to be</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">29500:2010</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> was</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">delayed</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> until the following year.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> Nonetheless, the 2</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><SUP><FONT FACE="Calibri">nd</FONT></SUP></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> edition has 2 years-worth of DR resolutions in it as will the 3</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><SUP><FONT FACE="Calibri">rd</FONT></SUP></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> edition.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">So, as we closed COR2 on 2011-09-28, I proposed that we close COR3 no sooner than 2 years from then.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Now Murata-san wrote that some important DRs have been open for more than 2 years.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">As to whether or not they are “important” begs the question, “By whose measure are they</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">considered to be</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">important?” and this leads me back to marketplace relevance. I am not aware of any marketplace</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">-</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">relevant implementer, consumer, or national body having informed WG4 that without resolutions</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">“real soon” that any commercial interests will be harmed.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">As to a DR being open for 2 years, I say, “So what?” Elapsed time alone is not a measure of whether something is important.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">A DR will only be closed when e</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">nough resources</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">are applied</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> to it</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">, and resource priorities are often driven by</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">marketplace relevan</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">ce</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">There is also the issue of where in an implementer’s cycle a COR or reprint is published. Specifically, it ma</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">y take</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">some years before a fix from a COR actually appears in a</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">n</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> implementation.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> So while we might hurry to fix something, that does not guarantee such a fix will appear anytime soon.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">That said, suppose we find one or a few errors that</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">we all agree</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">need fixing. I’m not at all opposed to our</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">publishing</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">a COR containing just those few DR resolutions, and getting it out as soon as the ballot process allows. Then the bulk of the D</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">R</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">s that get resolved will follow later in a (</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">presumably</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">much larger)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> COR. In such a scenario, I would argue strongly against publishing a consolidated reprint until after the 2</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><SUP><FONT FACE="Calibri">nd</FONT></SUP></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> COR has been adopted.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> So, my recommendation can easily be adapted to allow</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">one or more</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">“emergency” COR</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">s</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> to be published sooner than the 2 years I proposed.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> But to work on such a priority project we’d have to define the criteria for an “emergency” situation.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> The time it’s been open is insufficient on its own.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">The reason for maintaining the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">current</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">2-year cycle is predictability. The outside world needs to know what our plans are and</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">to be</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">comfortable with our</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"> <FONT FACE="Calibri">edition-generation</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> pattern.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> In fact, so do we as active participants, so we can budget out time and expenses.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Rex</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>