First set of proposed responses for DCOR1 set ballot comments

[Rex Jaeschke]

As I stated in a separate mail, 105 of the 161 comments are not addressed by
this document, as they pertain to COR vs. AMD. Of the remaining 56 comments,
my document contains proposed responses or deferral to WG4 for 25, leaving
31 without proposed answers. It is my hope that sometime on 11/25 I will be
able to post an updated version having proposed responses for most, if not
all, of the remaining 31 comments.

There needs to be one place in which all comment dispositions are recorded,
and in the 7 years I've been doing this for SC 22-related ballots, I've used
an augmented consolidated comment form as that one place. And it needs to
contain directly (or indirectly in "attached" files) all the changes agreed
to with nothing left to the editor's discretion. So, I disagree with your
statement, "This is because the WG can skip minor details and also because
the project editor (and
reviewing volunteers) can take care of minor details better."

Regarding, "I feel worried now, since discussions about minor details of
Px-XXE-00xx.pdf will consume a lot of time." As convener, you can set the
tone by limiting debate on non-substantive wordsmithing, or assign action
items during the breaks and/or overnight. You can also tell members to
prepare for the meeting in advance rather than reading proposed responses
for the first time right when we start discussing them in full committee,
and encourage them to submit wording improvements in advance of the meeting.

Rex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:58 PM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: First set of proposed responses for DCOR1 set ballot
> comments
> 
> Rex,
> 
> Thank you for the first set.
> 
> Do you intend to revise it before the meeting?  It appears that quite a
> few entries lack proposed dispositions.
> 
> When you propose to accept the comment, please write "Accept" in the
> "All Part x NB Comments (with Proposed Responses).pdf" in column 6.
> 
> As far as I know, SC34 has omitted detailed changes (such as the
> content
> in Px-XXE-00xx.pdf) from the disposition document.  This is because the
> WG can skip minor details and also because the project editor (and
> reviewing volunteers) can take care of minor details better.  I feel
> worried now, since discussions about minor details of Px-XXE-00xx.pdf
> will consume a lot of time.  I do not think that WG4 members are
> willing
> to spend a lot of time and money to do wordsmithing in Paris.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> SC34/WG4 Convenor
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)