Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2

[Keld Jørn Simonsen]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:39:27AM -0400, robert_weir at us.ibm.com wrote:
> Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld at keldix.com> wrote on 04/28/2011 04:19:32 AM:
> 
> > > 
> > > Hi Keld,
> > > 
> > > I'm not asking for a long delay.  I'd be happy to move this forward as 
> 
> > > quickly as next week.  We have an ODF TC call on Monday. We don't need 
> a 
> > > lot of advance time to review this.  But we need more than _zero_ 
> advance 
> > > notice.  I assume this is similar for any other organization, whether 
> NB 
> > > or Liaison.
> > 
> > OK, I understand that it of course would be nice to have a little more
> > time. But I also understand that we agree that the rules on one month
> > notice on documents do not apply here. What was scheduled for yesterday
> > was quite normal in ISO, a ballot resolution meeting very close to the
> > completion of the ballot. I often do this just one or two days after the
> > ballot has closed. And this is within the rules of ISO/IEC as I
> > described earlier - as it is under the authority of the project editor.
> > Actually the ballot resolution is in principle not related to national
> > bodies - national bodies are morally obliged to attend a ballot
> > resolution meeting if they have voted no, and it would be good if the NB
> > attends if the NB  has commented, but there are no rules that they do
> > need to attend, and the project editor can go on with issuing the
> > disposition of comments even if the NBs with comments did not attend. 
> > The situation with liaisons is even weaker - liaison organisations do
> > not have a vote.
> > 
> 
> Keld,
> 
> I don't see the situation the same as you do.

I hope we are not far from eachother. In the current case there should
not be any substantial differences. However, it might be enlightening to
share views on general cooperation between OASIS and WG6.

> 1. The SC34 Secretariat assigned these comments to WG6 for action, not to 
> the Project Editor.  See N1630: "WG 6 is requested to prepare a 
> disposition of comments report and revised text for publication."

OK, However, the rules on documents are not very different for a WG compared to a
project editor wrt. document notice. Yes, there are rules about calling
a meeting, and the teleconference the  27th was duly called.
But then all kinds of documents, also tabled very late can be
entertained. This is very common that WG experts deliver their documents in
the last hours, or even during a meeting session, possibly in response 
to other deliberations during the meeting week.

> 2. The new directives state: in the Fordward, under "Discipline":

> "Moreover, national bodies need to recognize that substantial comments 
> tabled at meetings are counter-productive, since no opportunity is 
> available for other delegations to carry out the necessary consultations 
> at home, without which rapid achievement of consensus will be difficult."

I believe this to be TC and SC meetings, ISO and IEC have no rules for
the conduct of WG meetings. In principle there are no national bodies 
present at WG meetings, we are all just experts. There is no defined 
decision process for a WG. And the WGs just operate as black boxes,
someting undefined happens in them, and out comes documents for SC or TC ballot.

> 3. The maintenance of IS 26300 is not governed solely by JTC1 Directives. 
> These rules are supplemented by the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 
> between JTC1 and OASIS (N1148 and N1149), as well as by the Terms of 
> Reference that accompanied the PAS ballot of DIS 26300, terms which were 
> unanimously approved when DIS 26300 was approved. All of these terms must 
> be honored, and they equally bind me, you and the Project Editor. 
> 
> The MoU, as agreed to by JTC1 and OASIS, states:
> 
> "Maintenance, such as correction of editorial and technical errors, as 
> well as creation of future editions, can best be coordinated by a single 
> body having responsibility for those tasks. That maintenance is undertaken 
> by the ODF TC of OASIS."
> 
> And in support of these principles, JTC1 and OASIS agreed:
> 
> "Both OASIS and ISO/IEC JTC 1 undertake via the ODF TC and SC 34, 
> respectively, whatever specific steps are necessary to implement these 
> principles for the maintenance of the OpenDocument Format standard."
> 
> The ODF TC cannot undertake its role as the single responsible 
> coordinating party, if changes are proposed with zero notice.  This is 
> more than "nice to have" from my perspective.  This is an essential step 
> of honoring the MoU.

What I wrote was based on normal ISO and IEC bahaviour. If special
agreements with outside bodies exist, the rules may of course  be
different. I doubt that the cooperation rules are as detailed as to
specifying how much time in advance OASIS or ISO need to have documents,
possibly of different types.

> I certainly understand and share your concern that progress with the 
> maintenance of IS 26300 should not be needlessly delayed.  But I do not 
> believe that having the ODF TC review these comments would be a 
> significant source of delay. 

I agree. I think aiming for consensus and using common sense can bring
us a long way toward our goals.

> If we are truly concerned about delay -- and I think it is worth 
> discussing how we can  make this process work without unnecessary delays 
> -- then maybe we can have a discussion about why it took almost two years 
> from the publication of OASIS ODF Approved Errata 1.0 (January 9th, 2009) 
> to the publication of IS 26300 COR1 (Dec 15th, 2010). 

Yes, I am also interested in investigating what we can do to minimize delays
for the combined process. We did talk about it about a year ago, but I
was hit by repeated winter illness then. In the meanwhile OASIS revised
their rues. Maybe we could look at the coordination again.

Best regards
Keld