From baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu  Fri Jan 22 12:28:10 1999
Received: from dad.cs.fsu.edu (dad.cs.fsu.edu [128.186.121.23])
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04659
	for <sc22wg15@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:28:09 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu)
Received: (from baker@localhost)
	by dad.cs.fsu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA04730;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 06:25:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 06:25:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Baker <baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
Message-Id: <199901221125.GAA04730@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (wg15tag 2218) (SC22WG15.1374) Comments on minutes of January meeting

I believe the second paragraph does not tell the whole story.  Did
we not address this issue?  In particular, I think we agreed that
if comments from all three groups agreed that a fix-up were needed
the document could be modified.

As regards the ISO procedures, I admit that all I have learned is
second hand, and so may be wrong.  However, let me at least ask:

Suppose the document is fast-track balloted in JTC1.

If there are enough YES votes to pass, the resolution of any
comments that are not supported by the other two groups would be
to the effect "Sorry, but you are in the minority on this issue."

If there are not enough YES votes to pass, and if the NO votes
cannot be turned by making changes supported by the other two groups,
then the document simply does not become an ISO standard.

There is no way that ISO can proceed with the standard, presuming
the ISO Project Editor is committed to enforcing the Joint
Procedures.  It simply dies in ISO.  That is as desired.

--Ted

| 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.