From keld Fri Jan 22 08:58:54 1999 Received: (from keld@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA03423; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:58:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from keld) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:58:54 +0100 (CET) From: Keld J|rn Simonsen Message-Id: <199901220758.IAA03423@dkuug.dk> To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.1374) Comments on minutes of January meeting > 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. Well, what I said was more that the only ISO procedure that allows a mere yes/no vote is the FDIS ballot of the 5-stage proces, and that the fast-track process allows for extensive commenting and subsequent ballot resolution and technical changes to the document, viz the recent Ecmascript 16262 and cultural registry 15897 fast-track ballots. ISO PAS procedures work very similar to fast-track in this respect. Jay Ashford said that the common development procedures did allow internal ballots be taken in each of the constituencies during the development phase. Keld said that we then may need a new syncronization plan.