AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?

[Dave Welsh]

Toshiko published http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/1455.zip   them on July 2, and they are public. Everyone should really take a short while to read them, and where necessary consult your NB for any questions on guidance. I would expect that Toshiko will spend a few minutes on the new JTC 1 Supplement to the ISO/IEC Directives in Tokyo, if not maybe we can ask her to be so kind as to walk us through the new material?

Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 7:04 AM
To: 'Keld Simonsen'; 'Norbert Bollow'
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?

Keld, Norbert

I have been monitoring this exchange and, at my request, BSI has already contacted both ISO and JTC 1 to request that copies of the new Directives (ISO/IEC Directives, JTC 1 Supplement and JTC 1 Standing Documents) should be made publicly-available without delay.

Francis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keld Simonsen [mailto:keld at keldix.com]
> Sent: 09 July 2010 14:34
> To: Norbert Bollow
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: Re: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?
> 
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 02:31:12PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Keld Simonsen <keld at keldix.com> 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
> Keld