AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?

[Francis Cave]

Hmm... I somewhat lost the will to live before getting that far down the JTC
1 Supplement... Thanks for doing the digging, Dave.

So, a minimum 3 months for PDAM ballot, 5 months for DAM ballot, 2 months
for FDAM ballot. If a new Amendment project is agreed in Tokyo, and there
are no hold-ups, it would reach publication stage in about 15-18 months,
i.e. first quarter of 2012.

Francis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Welsh [mailto:Dave.Welsh at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 10 July 2010 00:18
> To: francis at franciscave.com; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: AMD2: Draft, FDAM, FPDAM?
> 
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>