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

[MURATA Makoto]

Dear colleagues,

Wearing my convenor hat, I try to list decisions
by SC34 or WG4 and see what the directives
say about them.  These directives are available at

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/supporting_services/information_technology_task_force.htm


1) Starting a revision project (when the scope does not change)

We have not done this yet.

WG4 can recommend a revision project, but SC34 makes
the decision (project subdivision for the revision) in the plenary
meeting and P-member bodies confirm the decision by a default
letter ballot.  Since the plenary meeting always happen after a
WG4 F2F meeting, recommendation of a revision project will
be discussed in the WG4 F2F meeting.

Note:  Is a new work item proposal (and a ballot) needed in
the new directives?  I am not entirely sure.

2) Starting an amendment project

The same as in 1).  But I am very sure that a NWIP
is *not* needed.

3) Creating a new standard project

This requires a new work item proposal and a ballot.  Member
bodies can submit a NWIP at any time.  The plenary can also
start a NWIP, and  WG4 can recommend the plenary to do so.

Consensus in WG4 is not required before a NWIP.  Comment
disposition is finally approved by the SC34 plenary but is
done by WG4 if the scope of the new standard is in the
scope of WG4.

4) Starting a DCOR

A DCOR is not a new project.  It does not require any
decisions by the plenary.  WG4 can prepare DCOR
text and start a ballot at any time.

I believe that we have decided rough schedule of DCORs in
F2F meetings, but we have slightly changed the schedule
in teleconferences.

We have (roughly) decided which DR can be incorporated
in the current DCOR in a WG4 F2F meeting, but we have
dropped some DRs after that.

5) CD and PDAM ballots by SC34 members

After these ballots, WG4 does comment disposition, which has to
be endorsed by the SC34 plenary meeting.  Since the plenary
meeting always happens after a WG4 F2F meeting, comment
disposition has been done in WG4 F2F meetings.

5) DCOR ballots by SC34 members

WG4 does comment disposition.  Approval by the SC34 plenary
is not needed.

We have mostly did comment disposition in a F2F meeting,
but have slightly changed the disposition after that.  See
SC34 N1351.

6) DIS and DAM ballots by the combined ballot (ISO and IEC)

The same as in 5.

7) FDIS and FDAM ballots (yes or no)

We can do nothing.


Rex wrote:
>Regarding "important" things, I had in mind things like deciding to start an
>SC 34 or combined ballot for a COR or AMD,

The directives already mandate plenary decisions (which
are done after WG4 F2F meetings) for AMD projects.

Decision to start a DCOR meeting is our own.  Schedules
have been discussed in F2F meetings (and will continue
to be discussed, as I see it), but have been slightly changed
by following teleconferences. Does Rex propose that no
such changes should be made?

>establishing business plan rules
>including timelines of significant events,

I do not understand what Rex means by significant events.
But timelines of projects are decided by the plenary meeting,
which follows a WG4 meeting.

>deciding to ballot a new work
>item,

The directives allow member bodies to start a NWIP without even
speaking with others.  Member bodies tend to speak with others
in F2F meetings or teleconferences.

The directives also allow the SC34 plenary to start a NWIP.
It happens in a plenary meeting only, which follows a WG4 F2F
meeting.

>and, occasionally, proposed resolutions for a handful of high-impact
>DRs.

Probably, the biggest decision so far was the introduction of
strict namespaces.  I vaguely remember that this decision was
done by a teleconference but this topic was extensively discussed
by a F2F meeting.

I must say I still do not understand what Rex is proposing.

Regards,
Makoto



2012/1/19 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
> Thanks very much Jim, I agree with your analysis entirely.
>
> The word in question here is "important" and in my proposal I made no
> attempt to define what I meant by that. Suffice it to say that of all the
> DRs we've closed thus far, I'd had no objections to 98% of them being closed
> during a teleconference. If all the main parties are on the call or their
> opinions are represented by someone else or via written submissions (papers
> or email) then why not close them?
>
> Regarding "important" things, I had in mind things like deciding to start an
> SC 34 or combined ballot for a COR or AMD, establishing business plan rules
> including timelines of significant events, deciding to ballot a new work
> item, and, occasionally, proposed resolutions for a handful of high-impact
> DRs.
>
> Rex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Thatcher [mailto:Jim.Thatcher at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:15 PM
> To: MURATA Makoto
> Cc: John Haug
> Subject: RE: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip
>
> Murata-san,
>
> Apparently my response was bounced by the mail list server. I'm checking on
> that, but in the meantime, could you forward my response to the reflector?
>
> Best,
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Thatcher
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 11:14 AM
> To: 'MURATA Makoto'; 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
>
> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of intent here. It seems that Rex's
> proposal that important decisions be made only at F2F meetings is being
> interpreted as a recommendation that those important issues not be discussed
> or worked on outside of F2F meetings. I'm confident that this is not the
> intent behind Rex's proposal. Instead, I believe that Rex is proposing that
> official adoption of significant proposals be reserved done during F2F
> meetings, where participation is more active.
>
> In my experience with other standards committees that operate under a
> general rule that important decisions be taken at F2F meetings I have not
> seen this approach resulting in teleconferences being almost useless. What I
> have observed is that teleconferences provide a good forum for productive
> discussions, consideration of proposals, working through concerns, and
> arriving at a general consensus, with the formal decision to adopt that
> consensus as the committee's position being made at the following F2F. There
> is too little time at F2F meetings to have all of those discussions take
> place during the F2F meetings, and very often the discussions need some
> "bake time" for participants to think through issues, consider proposed
> alternatives, seek feedback from other interested parties, and such.
>
> I'm hopeful that we can start to involve other WG4 participants in the
> business plan discussions. That business plan should reflect the general
> consensus of WG4 participants regarding the relative priority of the
> different pieces of work before the WG. Rex has proposed a set of
> priorities, and I see significant merit in his proposal. I also recognize
> that there are existing DRs that are very important to particular members,
> and all WG members need to understand which issues are important to others.
> It's pretty unlikely that we will all agree across the board on the priority
> of every DR, but I expect we can agree on the priority level of most DRs.
>
> Beyond agreeing on the relative priority of the DRs it is also important
> that WG4 identify the experts that are willing to take responsibility for
> developing a proposed resolution for at least the high priority DRs. At
> least with respect to the resources that Microsoft sponsors, understanding
> the priority that WG4 attaches to each DR and the other experts committed to
> work on their resolutions is very important to me as I allocate those
> resources.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Thatcher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA
> Makoto
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:27 AM
> 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)
>
>> As to Ecma, TC45 has no policy to delay anything.
>
> Re: "Taking important decisions at F2F Meetings only"
>
> Providing a solution to DR 09-0040 is probably the most important thing for
> Japan.  Thus, this sentence prevents WG4 from addressing it in
> teleconferences.  Since most issues are important for somebody, it makes
> teleconferences almost useless.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto