Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2

Keld Jørn Simonsen keld at
Thu Apr 28 10:19:32 CEST 2011

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:06:59AM -0400, robert_weir at wrote:
> sc34wg6-bounces at wrote on 04/27/2011 09:39:35 AM:
> > 
> > Dear WG6
> > 
> > I believe it is the duty of the project editor to make the dispositions
> > of comments. Furthermore the disopsitioons of comments are due within
> > 3 months of the ballot.
> > 
> > So we are doing this work under the authority of the project editor, and
> > he can decide to issue the disposition of comments and the resulting 
> > corrected document as he wishes, even today.
> > 
> > Furthermore I think it is in the interest of OASIS to have this document
> > progressed as quickly as possible. At least in Denmark, the COR2 is a 
> vital
> > document for acceptance of ODF in the public sector - ODF was denied
> > recommendation in March 2011 because ODF 1.1 was not an ISO standard.
> > ODF will be reevaluated in October 2011. It would be essential that COR2
> > be approved at that time, and for that to happen, we need to send COR2
> > for ballot as quickly as possible.
> > 
> Hi Keld,
> I'm not asking for a long delay.  I'd be happy to move this forward as 
> quickly as next week.  We have an ODF TC call on Monday. We don't need a 
> lot of advance time to review this.  But we need more than _zero_ advance 
> notice.  I assume this is similar for any other organization, whether NB 
> or Liaison.

OK, I understand that it of course would be nice to have a little more
time. But I also understand that we agree that the rules on one month
notice on documents do not apply here. What was scheduled for yesterday
was quite normal in ISO, a ballot resolution meeting very close to the
completion of the ballot. I often do this just one or two days after the
ballot has closed. And this is within the rules of ISO/IEC as I
described earlier - as it is under the authority of the project editor.
Actually the ballot resolution is in principle not related to national
bodies - national bodies are morally obliged to attend a ballot
resolution meeting if they have voted no, and it would be good if the NB
attends if the NB  has commented, but there are no rules that they do
need to attend, and the project editor can go on with issuing the
disposition of comments even if the NBs with comments did not attend. 
The situation with liaisons is even weaker - liaison organisations do
not have a vote.

However, in the interest of concensus, I do not see any problem in
delaying issuing the disposition of comments till something like
Tuesday.  It is up to the project editor and he can decide to wait these
few more days, and take into account the discussion that you can provide
out of OASIS. 

> The ODF 1.1 synchronization part, is under a separate FPDAM ballot, 
> unrelated to DCOR 2.  That ballot ends June 8th, and will likely result in 
> further comments for WG6 to dispose.  I cannot imagine any scenario where 
> COR2 would not be published before the FPDAM ballot ends.

OK, I was mistaken on the COR number. 

Best regards

More information about the sc34wg6 mailing list