First set of proposed responses for DCOR1 set ballot comments

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Rex,

> 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."

You  appear to believe that the SC22 way should always be used in WG4. 
I don't think so.  This case is just one example of many conflicts between
us.  I think that you are in an old world.  We should discuss in Paris.  In
this case, what you are insisting is very different from what SC22, W3C,
IETF, and OASIS do.  

Examples of comment disposition documents are available from the SC34 
web site.  You might find them quite short, but nobody has complained.

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1217.htm
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1096.htm
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1089.pdf
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1088.pdf
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1096.htm
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1020.htm

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)