From OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Tue Mar 21 20:37:58 2000 Received: from npricsdexc02.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (firewall-user@EXCHANGE2B.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL [129.190.231.2]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA81346 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:37:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil) Received: by EXCHANGE2B.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:25:44 -0500 Message-ID: <42AEE645FD42D311BAB300104B316E742AF2A7@NPRICSDEXC01.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL> From: Oblinger Jim T NPRI To: "'Nick Stoughton'" , "'WG15 (E-mail)'" Subject: RE: (SC22WG15.1481) RE: Electronic Ballot - Resolutions from July 199 9 Meeting Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:28:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Nick Your reaffirmation of the previously submitted UK vote is sufficient. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Stoughton [mailto:NickS@webvangroup.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:30 PM > To: 'Oblinger Jim T NPRI'; 'WG15 (E-mail)' > Subject: (SC22WG15.1481) RE: Electronic Ballot - Resolutions from July > 199 9 Meeting > > > Please note that the UK, (and the US, and Canada) already voted yes on > these. I assume that no further vote is required from us? > > -- > Nick Stoughton > Webvan Group Inc Usenix Standards Liaison > 650 627 3277 510 366 6176 (cell) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oblinger Jim T NPRI [mailto:OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:01 AM > To: WG15 (E-mail) > Subject: (SC22WG15.1479) Electronic Ballot - Resolutions from > July 1999 > Meeting > > > 20 March 2000 > > To: WG15 > > From: Jim Oblinger - WG15 Convener > > Subj: Electronic Ballot - Resolutions from July 1999 Meeting > > During the July 1999 WG15 meeting in Montreal there was a discussion > concerning whether votes taken during the meeting could be > binding since > there were only three member bodies represented. At the > meeting I decided, > as the Convener, that we would hold a 45-day electronic > ballot to approve > the resolutions. A vote was taken at the time on whether to > include each > resolution in the minutes, but the electronic vote was to be > the official > vote. > > After the WG15 meeting was held, I had conversations with several SC22 > officials concerning quorum requirements and official rules > covering this > issue. Their decision finally was that the procedures under > which WG15 > operates offers no guidance on this questions and that it was > up to the > Convener's descretion. It was my intent at that point to > declair the vote > taken at the meeting to be the official vote. That I have > not done so in a > timely fashion makes it unfair to do so now. > > Per the WG15 meeting minutes I am submitting to the WG15, an > electronic > ballot on each of the resolutions developed during the July 1999 WG15 > Meeting. There are ten resolutions numbered 99-415 to > 99-424. The voting > is on each resolution separately. > > > BALLOT > > Please vote to approve (Yes vote), disapprove (No vote) or abstain > (Abstention vote)on the ten resolutions included in the July 1999 WG15 > Meeting minutes. These ten resolutions are included below. > > I have provided a ballot form for this vote. You may use > this or simply > indicate, in your email vote, the resolution number and > submitted vote. > Please respond to the WG15 Convener at: > > < j.oblinger@ieee.org > NO LATER than 4 May 2000. > > PLEASE RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE WG15 CONVENER - > NOT TO THE REFLECTOR > > Thank you for your cooperation. > > *********************************************************** > > Resolution Vote (Yes/No/Abstain) > > 99-415 > 99-416 > 99-417 > 99-418 > 99-419 > 99-420 > 99-421 > 99-422 > 99-423 > 99-424 > > > Submitted by ___________________________________________ > > Representing > > WG15 Member Nation _________________________ Date _________ > > > *********************************************************** > > 7.1 Resolutions > The following resolutions were approved for WG15 45-day > electronic ballot. > (Draft) RES 99-415 WG15 Vice Chair > Resolved that the JTC1/SC22/WG15 Convenor shall be the > standing vice-chair > of WG15. > (Draft) RES 99-416 User OSE Profiles Guide > JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to forward IEEE Guide for Developing User OSE > Profiles (IEEE 1003.23-1998) to > SC22 for Fast Track balloting. > (Draft) RES 99-417 Dissolution of Liaison to WG11 > Whereas Mr. Willem Wakker has served as liaison from JTC1/SC22/WG15 to > JTC1/SC22/WG11 (Cross > Language), and > Whereas that liaison is no longer required, > Therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 dissolves the liaison with > JTC1/SC22/WG11 (Cross > Language), and thanks Mr. > Willem Wakker for his long service in this role. > (Draft) RES 99-418 Dissolution of Liaison to WG21 > Whereas Prof Nobuo Saito has served as liaison from JTC1/SC22/WG15 to > JTC1/SC22/WG21 (C++), and > Whereas that liaison is no longer required, > Therefore, JTC1/SC22/WG15 dissolves the liaison with > JTC1/SC22/WG21, and > thanks Professor Saito for > his long service in this role. > (Draft) RES 99-419 C Language Incompatibilities > Whereas a draft standard revising the C Language is currently > in FDIS ballot > in JTC1, and > Whereas this draft standard contains language which appears to be > incompatible with the version of the C > Locale specified in 9945-1 and 9945-2, and > Whereas the developers of the previous version of the C > standard worked > closely with the US development > body for 9945-1 and 9945-2 to ensure that the Locales would be fully > compatible, but failed to do so for this. > revision, > Therefore, JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests JTC1, JTC1/SC22 and > JTC1/SC22/WG14 to > take appropriate > corrective action to realign the C and POSIX locales, and to > hold the FDIS > ballot open until such time as the > noted incompatibilities are resolved. > (Draft) RES 99-420 Registration of POSIX Locale > JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to forward ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 the > POSIX locale > and narrative cultural > specification contained in document N785 to SC22 for registration with > ISO/IEC 15897. > (Draft) RES 99-421 Project Editors Reports > Whereas JTC1/SC22/WG15 has a large number of documents > assigned to a large > group of editors, and > Whereas regular reports from these editors are essential to > the conduct of > business within > JTC1/SC22/WG15, > Therefore, JTC1/SC22/WG15 respectfully requests that all > project editors for > work assigned to this working > group submit a written report on the work assigned to them thirty days > before any formal plenary meeting > of JTC1/SC22/WG15. > (Draft) RES 99-422 Project Extension > Whereas the development body has spent much time and effort reolving > international comments against > POSIX.2b, and > Whereas a new draft of this standard is now available for > FPDAM ballot, and > Whereas the normal life of this project is about to expire, > Therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests that SC22 extend the life > of this project > accordingly. > (Draft) RES 99-423 Forwarding of Documents for FPDAM Ballot > JTC1/SC22/WG15 advises JTC1/SC22 that the following documents > are ready for > FPDAM ballot and > requests that these ballots be conducted as expeditiously as possible: > P1003.1j/D09 (Advanced Realtime Extensions) > P1003.2b/D12 (Additional Utilities) > (Draft) RES 99-424 Withdrawal of Work Item 9945-3 > Whereas division of work 22.21.01.01, LIS System Interface > (9945-3) has made > little progress in the recent > years, and > Whereas a project is now underway to revise 9945-1 and 9945-2, and > Whereas there seems little interest in getting this project completed, > Therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests JTC1/SC22 to withdraw the > corresponding > work item, and > JTC1/SC22/WG15 further thanks Mr Keld Simonsen for his > untiring efforts on > this work, and requests that > he ensures that the work is appropriately archived with the > JTC1/SC22/WG15 > webmaster. >