Norbert Bollow nb at
Fri Jul 9 14:31:12 CEST 2010

Keld Simonsen <keld at> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 10:01:41AM +0900, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> > Chris,
> > 
> > > *         We then go straight to FDAM, without an FPDAM.
> > > 
> > > Norbert, I think you were the biggest proponent of having an
> > > FPDAM before an FDAM but, if I understand right, you seemed to be
> > > happy just going to FDAM as long as there was a draft circulated
> > > early, and NBs were made aware of that fact. Am I reading your
> > > feelings correctly?
> As I said yesterday, I believe we are now under new rules.
> We do not have a project number for the amendment, so there is no
> project, and as a new project we will operate under new rules.
> Then there are 4 ballots
> NP can be ballotted in a SC34 plenary, provided it is on the agenda.
> PDAM is a 2, 3 or 4 month ballot
> DAM is a 5 month ballot.
> FDAM is a 2 month ballot, which can be avoided if there are no 
>   negative votes on the DAM ballot.

My feeling is that going straight to what DAM is not a good idea. At
least in the Swiss mirror committee, I'd expect this to be a
high-profile, potentially controversial topic.

With regard to Switzerland, being mirror committee chairman, I'd be
able to ensure that informal early circulation of a draft followed by
consideration of whatever comments we make would be equally effective
as a formal PDAM ballot. For example I could circulate the current
draft (or a later version that I would need to have by July 29 at the
latest) to the Swiss mirror committee and have us agree on a set of
comments which I would take with me to the Tokio face-to-face meeting.
(Would that be a good idea? Could I expect agenda time to be available
for discussion of such comments? Or would this kind of approach be
seen as somehow unfair to other P-members of SC34 if the "land of
watches" (which happens to care a lot about matters of timezones, days
that have 23 or 25 hours instead of the usual 24, etc.) gets an extra
opportunity to make comments and have them considered?)

With regard to other countries I'm really not able to say anything
about whether an informal commenting opportunity would serve them well
or not.

Looking at the above-quoted ballot durations, I'd suggest though that a
two-months PDAM ballot followed by a DAM ballot without negative votes
does not cost more time than a DAM ballot followed by an FDAM ballot.

On the other hand, if we go straight to DAM, and then another DAM ballot
is needed, we'll have lost a significant amount of time. Even worse in
my eyes would be the possibility that we go straight to DAM and issues
are raised which which would justify a significant re-work of the
planned amendment, but that isn't done for reasons of wanting to avoid
the delay that would be caused by another 5-month DAM ballot.

So my input, my feeling, is that IMO it's likely to be better to start
with a PDAM ballot.


Owner/CEO, Adaptux GmbH -
Coaching and Consulting in all areas of informatics management including
Goal-Setting, Strategy Development, Procurement, Day-To-Day Operations,
Software Asset Management, Risk Management, Benefit Orientation Management.

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list