From keld  Fri Jan 22 15:04:04 1999
Received: (from keld@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05421;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:04:04 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from keld)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:04:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld>
Message-Id: <199901221404.PAA05421@dkuug.dk>
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.1376) (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.

I remember that too.

> 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.

I don't think it is the proper way, as said earlier.
For a fasttrack, ISO is obliged to make a ballot resolution meeting,
and resolve the balot comments. Just saying "unfortunately, no,
there were enough yes-es" is not an adequate disposition of comment
on a fasttrack ballot. The FDIS procedure on the other hand is
specificaly designed to have a yes or no vote, without comments.

Keld