From dave@rc.gc.ca  Fri Jan 22 18:51:22 1999
Received: from blackhole.rc.gc.ca (blackhole.rc.gc.ca [205.150.42.41])
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA06652;
	Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:51:21 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from dave@rc.gc.ca)
Received: 	id MAA28293; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:47:00 -0500
From: "D. J. Blackwood" <dave@rc.gc.ca>
X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu, keld@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: Revisions of WG15 minutes
Cc: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 12:45:49 EST
Message-ID:  <9901221245.aa00910@hodgson.rc.gc.ca>

> I admit to carrying on a post-meeting
> debate, now, but I don't really agree
> with the conclusion below, and I was not
> convinced at the meeting either:
> 
> | Regarding comments that might be generated from the ballots, we concluded
> | that if comments from all three groups agreed that a fix-up were needed,
> | the document could be modified. We were not sure how to handle comments if
> | there was not unamimity.
> 
> It seems to me that both groups will need
> to sign a letter of understanding, to
> institute the joint operations.  That
> letter could include stipulation that
> each group would not proceed
> independently.  Indeed, I don't see how
> any group would be willing to go into
> joint development without such a
> multi-lateral agreement.
> 
> --Ted

I don't believe that WG15 has the power or authority to make such a
committment on behalf of JTC1.  Since JTC1 only meets annually, I
suspect that the process to have them agree would take a minimum of 1-2
years and would involve ISO lawyers based in Geneva.  Would this be the
prudent thing to do?  Perhaps, but not if we want a revision anytime
short of 5 years from now.  As long as we keep this as a mutual
understanding at the working group level I believe that we have a chance
for success.  Seeking formal recognition and agreement from the highest
levels at this early stage may be the surest way of killing the project.

Freed of the constraints of the sync plan with PASC, ISO might be
tempted to simply reaffirm or even revise the existing ISs independant
of PASC and TOG, a situation we all want to avoid.  ISs do take on a
life of their own independant of the WG that created them.  Had WG15
gone away last October, IS9945-1 and IS9945-2 would still exist and
could still be reaffirmed or revised by an international ballot at the
JTC1 level.  Most of the countries voting do not actively participate in
the process and may not even be monitoring the mailing lists.  They
simply submit a default ballot.

Dave