From OblingerJT@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil Thu Aug 10 23:35:51 2000 Received: from npri54exc10.Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil (NPRI54EXC10.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL [129.190.70.164]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA68929 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:35:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from OblingerJT@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil) Received: by NPRI54EXC10.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:35:41 -0400 Message-ID: <731422FC2FCAD211B91C0008C75D890A21D053@NPRI54EXC20.NPT.NUWC.NAVY.MIL> From: Oblinger James T NPRI To: "'Seeds, Glen'" Cc: "WG15 (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (SC22WG15.1524) FW: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:35:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Glen; You raise a very good question. SC22 is looking to its working groups for feedback on their reactions to this proposal. But the proposal is not clear in several areas, one of which is the voting issue that you raise. I believe that the intent of the proposal is to increase participation but a concern is to accomplish this without diluting the national vote or participation. I don't believe the current text captures this at present. Since this will probably be a long discussion at the SC22 meeting in late September I am interested in collecting input from all members of this mail list. WG15 has an opportunity to express its opinion via SC22. So as to your question, my response is what level of change to the existing principle is WG15 willing to accept or tolerate? None, or some thing more? Possibly more fundamentally for WG15 is - Does the group think that it is desireable to the health of the group to seek wider participation via sources other than national bodies? Jim Oblinger Voice (401) 832-1366 or DSN 920-1366 Fax (401) 832-2130 Code 2233, B1171-2 1176 Howell St. NUWCDIVNPT Newport, RI 02841-1708 > -----Original Message----- > From: Seeds, Glen [mailto:Glen.Seeds@Cognos.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:53 AM > To: 'Oblinger James T NPRI' > Cc: WG15 (E-mail) > Subject: RE: (SC22WG15.1524) FW: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara > > > Thanks for this. In the proposal for widened participation, > there is one > point that I'm unclear on. I understand that all participants > would have an > equal voice within the working groups. In practice, I don't > think there's > anything new about that. When it comes to formal balloting of > documents, > though, is there anything that changes the existing principle of "one > country, one vote"? > /glen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oblinger James T NPRI [mailto:OblingerJT@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil] > Sent: August 2, 2000 5:18 PM > To: WG15 (E-mail) > Subject: (SC22WG15.1524) FW: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara > > > The following message from acting SC22 Chair John Hill was > distributed to > the SC22 in preparation for the SC22 meeting in Sept. At the > WG15 meeting > there was a discussion on the 'proposed changes to the JTC1 > structure' as > this could have an impact on WG15. > > Any comments you might have on these issues may be circulated > within SC22 or > provided to your SC22 national committee. > > Jim Oblinger > > < mailto:OblingerJT@npt.nuwc.navy.mil > > > > > Voice (401) 832-1366 or DSN 920-1366 > > Fax (401) 832-2130 > > Code 2233, B1171-2 1176 Howell St. > > NUWCDIVNPT Newport, RI 02841-1708 > > -----Original Message----- > From: John L. Hill [mailto:John.Hill@sun.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 9:59 AM > To: SC22@dkuug.dk > Subject: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara > > > I am writing this note to inform you of my personal thoughts on the > discussion items. As many of you are having meetings to > prepare for our > meeting in Nara, I hope this note will help you to develop positions. > Contributions to the SC22 meeting are welcome and will > greatly help us all. > > There may be a timing mismatch related to the document > availability for some > of these items. As a result, several of the items may be > difficult for you > to consider. I have taken the liberty to attach the relevant JTC 1 > documents. Many of you will receive the equivalent SC22 > documents on these > topics within a week. > > SC Level of Approval of NPs: JTC 1 has approved new rules > permitting SCs to > approve NPs within their area of work. SC22 needs to develop a set of > procedures for this approval. I think this should be the subject of > break-out session 1. > > DIS 16262-ECMAScript: SC22 needs to establish the means by > which comment > resolution on the DIS ballot can be handled. Maybe > establishment of an ad > hoc or assignment to a WG are appropriate. > > Normative Referencing of Specifications Other than > International Standards: > JTC 1 has extended the trial period. If SC22 has any > comments, we need to > approve and send a document to JTC 1. > > Participation in JTC 1 Development Activity: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc > on Strategic > Planning approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved > by JTC 1, > would permit direct participation in WGs and projects by > persons outside of > NB accreditation. An example is that Organization A could > participate in the > technical standards development without being accredited by a > national body. > It seems to me that this has the potential to greatly broaden > participation > in SC22's technical work. JTC 1 has asked the SCs for > comments on this. I > think break-out session 2 should address this. > > Proposed Changes to JTC 1 Structure: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on > Strategic Planning > approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC > 1, would permit > a thinning of JTC 1's organization structure. It permits > technical groups, > such as SC22, to organize however it wishes. There are > numerous potential > organization structures. Here are a few. There are others: > > * WGs reporting to SC22 which reports to JTC 1 (in truth, > this is no > change to today's structure) > > * Projects reporting direct to SC22 (we have some of these) > > * WGs reporting direct to JTC 1, rather than to SC22 > > * Combinations of the three above > > JTC 1 has asked for comments on how the SCs might implement > this. I think > break-out session 2 should address this. > > Funding the JTC 1 Program: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic > Planning approved a > recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC 1, would > permit development > of a mechanism by which the organizations participating > directly in the > technical work pay their fair share. The thing is, the > funding of the JTC 1 > and SC secretariats is by national body. Each NB holding a > secretariat has > its own means of funding the secretariats it holds. By > permitting direct > participation in JTC 1's technical activities, the direct > participants could > avoid paying their share. JTC 1 needs some means of getting > funds from those > direct participants or risk financial disaster for the > secretariats. JTC 1 > has asked the SCs for comments on how this might take place. I think > break-out session 2 should address this. > > Maintenance Teams: JTC 1 has asked the SCs for comments on a > recommendation > that the standards maintenance process migrate to a system of > maintenance > teams. If SC22 has any comments, we need to approve and send > a document to > JTC 1. > > JTC 1 Long Term Business Plan: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning > approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC > 1, would permit > establishment of a standing committee on strategic planning. > JTC 1 has asked > its SCs for comments. If SC22 has any comments, we need to > approve and send > a document to JTC 1. > > Request from IETF: The Chairman of JTC 1 has received a > request from the > IETF architecture board. The request is for expedited > standardization of > some items to facilitate multi-lingual, multi-cultural use of > the WWW. I, > and the JTC 1 chairman, have had discussions with the JTC 1 > subgroups whose > scopes seem to most closely approximate the request. These > include SC2, SC > 35, and SC22/WG20. At this time, there does not seem to be > clear alignment > of the scopes of these groups with the request. SC22 needs to > consider how > it can contribute to addressing the request. > > Strategic Planning: > > Several of these discussion items derive from the > recommendations of the JTC > 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning. That group approved several > very serious > recommendations for JTC 1 to address at its next meeting > (Tromso, Norway, > 11/00). SC22 is among the very few SCs to have a meeting > between the time > that the requests for input came out and the document > submission deadline > for the Tromso meeting. In other words, SC22 is in position > to give JTC 1 > contributions on how the SCs feel about the recommendations. > > Another aspect of the Tromso meeting of JTC 1 comes to mind. > That is, JTC 1 > may approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the > recommendations. We won't > know at the time of our meeting in Nara. > > SC22 should put in place a plan assuming JTC 1 approves > changes like these. > SC22 needs to consider establishing an ad hoc group to address SC22's > responses to JTC 1's actions. The topics are complex, interrelated and > important enough that the ad hoc group will have to meet face > to face at > least once. >