From ashford@austin.ibm.com Fri Jan 22 01:17:04 1999 Received: from ausmail1.austin.ibm.com (ausmail1.austin.ibm.com [192.35.232.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA01724 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 01:17:03 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ashford@austin.ibm.com) Received: from netmail.austin.ibm.com (netmail.austin.ibm.com [9.53.250.98]) by ausmail1.austin.ibm.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA16444 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:10:54 -0600 Received: from bharold-rs.austin.ibm.com (bharold-rs.austin.ibm.com [9.53.156.87]) by netmail.austin.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA78098 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:17:00 -0600 Received: from peace (peace.austin.ibm.com [9.53.156.140]) by bharold-rs.austin.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.7-client1.01) with SMTP id SAA21658 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:17:00 -0600 Message-Id: <4.1.19990121181318.009c2da0@bharold-rs.austin.ibm.com> X-Sender: ashford@bharold-rs.austin.ibm.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:17:09 -0600 To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk From: Jay Ashford Subject: Comments on minutes of January meeting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Attached is a revision to the minutes of the January meeting. This is the only substantive comment I have received. I will send a revised copy of the minutes back to the reflector at an appropriate point, but I would like to see any other comments on the minutes before doing so. The attached text represents the new section 3.1. The first paragraph below is replicated from before, and the following two paragraphs are additions. Jay ----------------------------------------------------------- 3.1 The Austin Group and the Joint Procedures Committee Roger Martin provided a little bit of background material concerning the Joint Procedures Committee and the Austin Group (the technical group). The procedures group is charged with developing a set of procedures for developing a standard jointly between The Open Group (TOG), PASC, and ISO & WG15. Andrew Josey described the meetings of the technical group. The group is only just beginning at this point. See http://www.opengroup.org/austin for further information. There was some discussion of process. The current thoughts from the Joint Procedures Committee propose that the three bodies (TOG, PASC, and ISO) be allowed at the end of the process to either approve or disapprove of the revised standard without affecting its content. There was some discussion among the group as to whether or not there exist procedures in each of those three bodies that will permit such to happen. Keld stated that he believed there to be no ISO procedure to support this and that a suitable synchronization plan might be needed. Further discussion is likely as the Joint Procedures Committee continues its work. Note that Resolution 99-406 created two rapporteur groups to attend to the Joint Procedures Committee and the Austin Group.