WG15 N649r
Proposal on WG15 decision making by EMAIL		23 May 96
>(changes from May 8th proposal flagged with ">")

	Note, most "decisions" related to actual standards drafts
are handled by SC22.  However, WG15 has decisions that need to be
made, from endorsing action (such as forwarding a document to SC22
for balloting) or agreeing to a disposition of comments.  Such
decisions are made, ideally, "with no objections" ... seeking to
identify any concerns that might be raised, and also to achieve
consensus.   Here is our recommendation on how we conduct this via
>electronic means as a result of the May 1996 meeting (resolution 342):

1) Distribute a "WG15 BALLOT" via the official WG15 email reflector.
	The title should include those words to help members recognize
	decision related mail.	(Even though the feedback sought is
	likely to not be a "yes/no" ballot response.)

>	Documents for decision should be short, "flat", ISO 646 text format.

2) The email document will propose a position, and/or wording to
	be approved.  (i.e. "forward draft x of abc for concurrent
	CD registration and ballot", or "text for the disposition
	of comments is as follows: ...")

	The primary question raised will be "do you have any objections
	to the stated position (or recommendation)?" with room to
	expand on comments related to the recommendation.

	And the question will be raised: "is this the response for
	your member body?" --- (WG's are primarily nominated experts,
	and may or may not be speaking for the member body ... but
	objections at the WG level from any expert should be considered.)

>3) A time period will be set for response of 45 days. An extension for
    15 more days may be submitted by any member body within this period.

>	Reminders will be sent via the email reflector by the convener
	after 15 and 30 days.

4) Approval and alternatives:

	At the end of that time, if there are no objections or requests for
	an extension the proposal will be considered to have been approved.

	Please direct comments to the entire WG15 distribution list
	(just as concerns would be voiced to the entire group), this
	will allow other members to concur with a comment, or to propose
	a resolution. And please do this as quickly as possible in
	the cycle.

	The convener will incorporate comments and proposed changes
	to the document with the intent of establishing the greatest
	consensus (i.e. including things that seem easy, or where there
	is significant concurrence with the concern.)

	If there is controversy over a proposed change, but substantial
	consensus exists (for this, affirmative feedback is also needed)
	then the proposal will have been considered to be approved.

	If there not substantial consensus, the issue will either be
	restructured and a new ballot initiated, or refereed to a
	discussion of the Working Group.