From keld  Mon Jan 25 06:57:00 1999
Received: (from keld@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21960;
	Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:57:00 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from keld)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:57:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld>
Message-Id: <199901250557.GAA21960@dkuug.dk>
To: ashford@austin.ibm.com, baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu, dave@rc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Revisions of WG15 minutes
Cc: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk

> > 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.
>
> | I am not sure why you don't agree with this, Ted, I understood
> | that this was one of the things that you were championing.
>
> What I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that we have to allow
> for the possibility that any single organization who does not like the
> ballot outcome could go ahead and produce an independent standard
> that is incompatible.
>
> It seems the joint development project should only proceed if the
> three groups "sign on" to the joint procedures, including the
> stipulation that by voting "no" on the ballot of the joint
> standard any group will be agreeing not proceed further with a
> standard in this area if the standard is approved by the other two
> groups.
>
> --Ted

Well, I think we agree there, and that is why I am advocating the
5-stage procedure in ISO, as there we can procedurally make the
yes/no (only) vote happen. It is very hard to just make a memorandum of
understanding on what you are stipulating, as WG15 or SC22 are
not the masters of the ISO procedures. The MoU can be broken by just
one member body opposing to it and referring to normal ISO rules.

Keld
>