AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?

[Dave Welsh]

Francis

I was looking at Annex JA.8 in the JTC 1 Supplement, line number 1090 at the bottom of p36 of the pdf file for all the time periods incl PDAM, DAM and FDAM.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 2:30 PM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?

Dave

Thanks for this summary. At present the JTC 1 website directs you to the ISO website, which is where you'll find the old version of the JTC 1 Directives.
You may be right that the JTC 1 Standing Documents will only be available from the JTC 1 website, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't all end up being on the ISO TC portal (i.e. in the Open Text system), since that is, by default, where all TCs and JTC 1 are encouraged to store their documents.

The draft of Standing Document No 10 on Maintenance (JTC 1 N 9869) appears to confirm that Amendments progressed under the new Directives must go through the Committee, Enquiry and Approval stages (PDAM, DAM and FDAM). I'm not sure what the ballot periods are for these stages, but I think that the DAM ballot is longest (5 months?) and FDAM ballot is shortest (2 months?).
Do you have access to definite information on this?

Regards,

Francis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Welsh [mailto:Dave.Welsh at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 09 July 2010 20:09
> To: francis at franciscave.com; 'Keld Simonsen'; 'Norbert Bollow'
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?
> 
> Hi Francis -
> 
> This is just my personal take on the standing documents, so ...
> 
> The Standing Documents are basically the old Annexes in the former JTC
> 1 Directives and valuable procedural rules/best practices but not 
> appropriate for incorporation into the new JTC 1 Supplement. In order 
> to retain such information, JTC 1 Standing Documents were created, so 
> you could think of this as the new JTC 1 Supplement contains 
> "directives" and the Standing Documents contain "rules" that enhance 
> the "directives", and I thought the Standing Documents will be 
> available on the JTC 1 website only.
> 
> The 16 Standing Documents are
> 1. Advisory and Ad Hoc Groups
> 2. API
> 3. Conformity Assessment
> 4. Electronic Document Preparation, Distribution and Archiving 5. 
> History (SD 1) 6. Interoperability 7. ITU-T and JTC 1 Liaison 8. JTC 1 
> PAS Transposition Process 9. Liaisons 10. Maintenance 11. Meetings 12. 
> Normative References 13. Operations 14. Registration Authorities 15. 
> Technical Reports and Specifications 16. Teleconferences and 
> Electronic Meetings (SD 2)
> 
> And I've recently seen some review on API plus the (JTC 1) History, in 
> fact I hope they captured Jim Mason's notes for SC 34, so I am 
> assuming all the Standing Documents are being 'processed', but I agree 
> with your point that our NB's should be giving us some 
> training/support/clarification as we all transition over to the new 
> 'process' over the 12 months.
> 
> All the very best
> Dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:38 AM
> To: Dave Welsh; 'Keld Simonsen'; 'Norbert Bollow'
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?
> 
> Dave
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. SC 34 N 1455 does indeed include the 
> ISO/IEC Directives and the JTC 1 Supplement, but not the Standing 
> Documents. I'm not sure which Standing Documents have been published, 
> but some of these are likely to be relevant.
> 
> However, if you go looking for the JTC 1 Directives on the JTC 1 or 
> ISO websites, you still only find the old version - and that is what 
> BSI is trying to get rectified.
> 
> Francis
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Welsh [mailto:Dave.Welsh at microsoft.com]
> > Sent: 09 July 2010 16:29
> > To: francis at franciscave.com; 'Keld Simonsen'; 'Norbert Bollow'
> > Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> > Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
>