Keld Simonsen keld at
Fri Jul 9 15:34:13 CEST 2010

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 02:31:12PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 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.

I am not sure we can go directly to DAM with the new rules. 
I did not see anything on that in the ISO/IEC directives nor in the
ISO supplement. There may be something in a specific JTC1 supplement,
that I did not find on the JTC 1 web site, but should be there somewhere.

Rex, can you cite chapter and verse for the direct DAM ballot rule?

Best regards

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list