"Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip

[Rex Jaeschke]

The paper itself shows me as the author without any affiliation. Regarding
the 
"Ecma liaison", I presume you are referring to the HTML page index on the
public document site for WG4. My guess is that when I added this new
document, I simply cloned an earlier entry (my normal approach), but I did
not remove the "Ecma liaison". I could do that, but after all, I participate
in WG4 as a member of the Ecma liaison delegation.

Certainly a number of TC45 members active on WG4 have read that paper and
support it. It will also be discussed at the next TC45 meeting (next week).

As to you comments re the font-related DRs, I'm confused. I don’t believe my
paper proposed delaying anything important. In fact, in my mail of
2012-01-11, "WG4 Business Plan: Parts 1 and 4 Maintenance", I talk about how
DRs get closed based on the resources committed to them, and I said that if
WG4 saw an emergency situation in which critical fixes need to be published
then I had no problem with a having a COR for that purpose.

As to Ecma, TC45 has no policy to delay anything.

Rex



> -----Original Message-----
> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> MURATA Makoto
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:07 PM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip
> 
> Wearing my JP hat,
> 
> In the WG4 archive, the source of the document is "Rex Jaeschke, Ecma
> liaison".
> Does this mean that Ecma endorsed this document?
> 
> Japan is unhappy with slow progress of font-related DRs.  Japan wonders
why
> the project editor argues against timely addressing them, and thinks that
the
> project editor should be neutral.  Does Ecma also argue against timely
> addressing font-related DRs?
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 2012/1/12 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
> > Prior to the Busan, KR, Face-to-Face (F2F) meeting, I proposed to
> > Murata-san privately that WG4 have a detailed business plan. The
> > primary reasons for this were to
> >
> > Force WG4 members to look at the “big picture” rather than to work on
> > topics in a piecemeal fashion Be realistic about the resources needed
> > and available Be able to share with the stakeholders outside WG4
> > information about where IS 29500 was headed Be willing to commit to a
> > written plan that was made public, thereby
> > (hopefully) making them think a lot more before committing, and with a
> > bigger stake in the long-term success of the 29500 standardization
> > process
> >
> > Murata-san bought into this idea and put it on the Busan agenda. At
> > that meeting, we discussed it briefly and I reiterated the main points
> > that I had argued privately with Murata-san.
> >
> > By then, he had set up a wiki on which he asked me to post my ideas.
> > During the following months, I added a number of items and Murata-san
> > made numerous edits. It soon became obvious to me that while a wiki
> > might be useful for wordsmithing text in a specification, I don’t see
> > it being the best way of dealing with higher-level proposals, such as
> > a business plan. Specifically, I am really not interested in seeing
> > detailed wording changes to my proposal, but rather, a discussion
> > for/against the principles I raised in each point.
> >
> > So, I have re-published in N 0220 all the text I posted to the wiki
> > last year in the hopes of stimulating a discussion of the merits of my
points.
> > Once we agree on those, I expect that any wording changes needed will
> > easily follow.
> >
> > In separate mails, I’ll address Murata’s concerns about some of my
> > proposals.
> >
> > Rex
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> 
> Makoto