Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Thu Apr 28 14:39:27 CEST 2011
Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld at keldix.com> wrote on 04/28/2011 04:19:32 AM:
> > 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
> > lot of advance time to review this. But we need more than _zero_
> > notice. I assume this is similar for any other organization, whether
> > 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.
I don't see the situation the same as you do.
1. The SC34 Secretariat assigned these comments to WG6 for action, not to
the Project Editor. See N1630: "WG 6 is requested to prepare a
disposition of comments report and revised text for publication."
2. The new directives state: in the Fordward, under "Discipline":
"Moreover, national bodies need to recognize that substantial comments
tabled at meetings are counter-productive, since no opportunity is
available for other delegations to carry out the necessary consultations
at home, without which rapid achievement of consensus will be difficult."
3. The maintenance of IS 26300 is not governed solely by JTC1 Directives.
These rules are supplemented by the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between JTC1 and OASIS (N1148 and N1149), as well as by the Terms of
Reference that accompanied the PAS ballot of DIS 26300, terms which were
unanimously approved when DIS 26300 was approved. All of these terms must
be honored, and they equally bind me, you and the Project Editor.
The MoU, as agreed to by JTC1 and OASIS, states:
"Maintenance, such as correction of editorial and technical errors, as
well as creation of future editions, can best be coordinated by a single
body having responsibility for those tasks. That maintenance is undertaken
by the ODF TC of OASIS."
And in support of these principles, JTC1 and OASIS agreed:
"Both OASIS and ISO/IEC JTC 1 undertake via the ODF TC and SC 34,
respectively, whatever specific steps are necessary to implement these
principles for the maintenance of the OpenDocument Format standard."
The ODF TC cannot undertake its role as the single responsible
coordinating party, if changes are proposed with zero notice. This is
more than "nice to have" from my perspective. This is an essential step
of honoring the MoU.
I certainly understand and share your concern that progress with the
maintenance of IS 26300 should not be needlessly delayed. But I do not
believe that having the ODF TC review these comments would be a
significant source of delay.
If we are truly concerned about delay -- and I think it is worth
discussing how we can make this process work without unnecessary delays
-- then maybe we can have a discussion about why it took almost two years
from the publication of OASIS ODF Approved Errata 1.0 (January 9th, 2009)
to the publication of IS 26300 COR1 (Dec 15th, 2010).
More information about the sc34wg6