|
|
| How NBs can register a changed vote on OOXML - and a Chart of Directives Changes |
 |
|
Friday, March 07 2008 @ 02:43 PM EST
|
Alex
Brown has now posted instructions for national bodies, or NBs, who want to change their September votes, in a comment answering a question from Bob Sutor:Bob Sutor
2008-03-06, 14:49
Alex,
Could you please list the explicit instructions that a national body should follow in order to let JTC1/ISO/IEC know that the country has changed its vote on OOXML/DIS 29500? Is it an online action or are they supposed to send email to someone? Thanks.
Bob Sutor
IBM...Administrator (Alex Brown)
@Bob, I believe FAQ item 6.3 answers your question. There is more detail on the SC 34 Home Page. Note the deadline is midnight CET on 29 March 2008.
Alex Sutor has posted the information also, and he adds this detail: Keith Brannon mentioned to me in an email that it is essential that the person letting him know of a change in vote be an official designated national body representative and not someone else. Yes, they can change their vote to No from Yes or Abstain.
Here's what you'll find on the SC 34 home page, and I've highlighted the part he didn't mention in his comment: DIS 29500 BRM:
* ... Within 30 days after the BRM, national bodies voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote from any of “approve”, “disapprove” or “abstain” to any of “approve”, “disapprove” or “abstain”. Any NB wishing to change its vote must inform ITTF (brannon@iso.org) of this intention and confirm the intention in writing.
In accordance with the JTC 1 Directives, the progress of the specification will depend on the revised status of all previously-received votes after the BRM.
Please see SC 34 N 932: Frequently Asked Questions regarding DIS-29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting for more details. That indicates to me that an email is NOT enough. Since they seem to ignore all rules that don't help Microsoft and insist religiously on those that do, I'd assume that style will continue and that they will insist on every jot and tittle of these instructions to the letter. That means being careful that the right person sends the email and then confirms it in writing in snail mail.
Now, I've earlier noticed that this FAQ is not identical in all respects, as I read it, with the Directive [PDF] Brown wrote he was following -- for example, in regard to who gets to vote at the BRM -- and it seems to be written specially for this particular process, and while I'd assume the Directive would legally trump an interpretive FAQ, since they cite the FAQ for how to register a changed vote, here's the info from the FAQ, and hopefully it matches the Directive:
After the meeting
5.1 Is there a further ballot on the DIS 29500 text after the BRM?
No. The BRM is the end of the formal scrutiny process and there is no further balloting, formal deliberation or revision.
5.2 How long will NBs have after the meeting to inform ITTF of a changed vote?
If a NB wishes to modify its vote from that of the 2 September ballot, it must inform ITTF within 30 days of the end of the BRM. At this time, ITTF will re-tally the votes and the fate of DIS 29500 will be decided.
Voting
6.1 In what circumstances may NBs change their vote from that of 2 September?
NBs may change their vote if the BRM agrees to amend the text of the DIS in any way.
6.2 In what ways may an NB change its vote?
NBs that voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote from any of “approve”, “disapprove” or “abstain” to any of “approve”, “disapprove” or “abstain”.
6.3 What is the mechanism for changing a vote?
Any NB wishing to change its vote must inform ITTF of this intention and confirm the intention in writing.
6.4 Why must countries inform ITTF and not JTC 1?
Because ITTF is responsible for administering the voting of NBs on FDISs and DISs.
6.5 What voting status will NBs have?
For voting at the BRM, and in the ongoing DIS 29500 ballot the voting status (either “P” member or “O” member) is fixed as per the result of the 2 September letter ballot.
6.6 Who are “P” members for the purposes of voting?
In all voting on the DIS 29500 fast track, “P-members” means P-members of JTC 1 (who voted as such in the 2 September ballot), not P-members of SC 34 or any other ISO/IEC committees.
6.7 What criteria may NBs use in deciding whether (or not) to switch their votes?
No constraints are placed upon the criteria NBs may use for deciding their voting position....
6.10 If a NB expert did not participate in the BRM, may this NB subsequently change their vote?
All ISO/IEC JTC 1 NBs will receive the results of the BRM immediately after the meeting. Upon review of the BRM results, any NB that voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote, whether or not their expert(s) attended the BRM.
If anyone can find identical instructions in the Directive, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know. I've read it several times, and I am not able to do so. But, in any case, according to this, NBs are to inform ITTF, not JTC 1. And there are no constraints. Whatever way an NB voted in September, they can change it to anything they please. Update: There is a report now, put out by Microsoft employee Doug Mchugh on his blog that the V1 Technical Committee that advises INCITS has voted to recommend approval of OOXML. INCITS still has to endorse. You'll recall that there was a flipflop back in August before the first vote, after a July vote against approval, and after some
heavy Microsoft lobbying and some stacking of the deck. Speaking of flipflopping, Patrick Durusau, who recently did that himself regarding OOXML, is on the V1 committee. So this is not a surprise. [End update.] PolR has done a helpful chart of three versions of the Directive. It's a fascinating project, because in the latest Directive, it notes on the first page that recent changes are in purple, and earlier changes are in blue or red. But section 13, all about fast tracking, is completely in purple, which, it turns out, distorts the reality, making the actual changes harder to spot.
That's what Groklaw is for, of course. He compares: -
Edition 5 version 3 current since 2007-04-05
-
Edition 5 version 2, effective 2006-04-12
-
Edition 4
Edition 4 has no date, but metada indicates the last modification was July 30, 1998. If you note any errors, please let me know, so we can be positive we have it right. Of course, for anything that matters, go by the original PDFs, which you can find here. Here is the comparative chart in ODF format, and you can download it. And here it is in plain text:
*****************************
|
Edition
4
|
Edition
5 version 2, identical to
Edition
5 version 1 according to ISO
|
Edition
5 version 3
|
|
No
date in the text
metadata
indicates last modification is July 30th
1998
|
version
1: 2006-03-06
version
2: 2006-04-12
|
2007-04-05
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
Preparation and Adoption of International Standards - Fast-Track
Processing
|
13
Preparation and Adoption of International Standards - Fast-Track
Processing
|
13
Preparation and Adoption of International Standards - Fast-Track
Processing
|
|
13.1
Any P member
of JTC 1 or organization in Category A liaison
with JTC 1 may propose that an existing standard (or
amendment with the approval of the responsible SC) from any source
be submitted
without modification directly for vote as a DIS
(or DAM).
The criteria for proposing an existing standard for the
fast-track procedure is a matter for each proposer to decide.
|
13.1
Any P-member of JTC 1 or organisation in Category A liaison with
JTC 1 may propose that an existing
standard
(or amendment with the approval of the responsible SC) from any
source be submitted without
modification
directly for vote as a DIS (or DAM). The criteria for proposing an
existing standard for the fast-track
procedure
is a matter for each proposer to decide.
|
3.1
Any P-member of JTC 1 or organisation in Category A liaison with
JTC 1 (the
proposer)
may propose that
a)
an
existing standard from any source be submitted without
modification directly for vote as a DIS;
or
b)
an
existing amendment to a standard, with the approval of the
responsible SC, be submitted without modification directly for
vote as a DAM.
The
criteria for proposing an existing standard for the fast-track
procedure is a matter for each proposer to decide.
|
|
Prior
to submission of a document for fast-track processing, a P member
or Category A liaison organization of JTC 1 may request that
the document be submitted through the JTC 1 Secretariat to
one or more SCs for informal comment or discussion among the
interested parties. Any comments on format, technical content,
completeness, etc. could be considered by the requester prior to
formal submission of the document for fast-track procedure.
|
Prior
to submission of a document for fast-track processing, a P-member
or Category A liaison organisation of JTC 1 may request that the
document be submitted through the JTC 1 Secretariat to one or more
SCs for informal comment or discussion among the interested
parties. Any comments on format, technical content, completeness,
etc. could be considered by the requester prior to formal
submission of the document for fast-track procedure.
|
Prior
to submission of a document for fast-track processing, a P-member
or Category A liaison organisation of JTC 1 may request that the
document be submitted through the JTC 1 Secretariat to one or more
SCs for informal comment or discussion among the interested
parties. Any comments on
format,
technical content, completeness, etc. could be considered by the
requester prior to formal submission of the document for
fast-track procedure.
|
|
The
proposer of a fast-track document is encouraged to make a
recommendation concerning the assignment of the document to a
given SC.
The proposer of a fast-track document shall submit the name of an
individual who has agreed to serve
as project editor for the fast-track
document. This recommendation (or in its absence, the JTC 1
Secretariat's recommendation) shall be circulated to JTC 1
NBs together with the DIS ballot (see Form G12).
Separately from its vote on the technical content of the
standard, NBs shall be given the opportunity to comment on the
specific assignment. However, comments on assignment shall
not prejudice the vote on technical content.
In cases where the SC assignment is in question or where the
fast-track document does not appear appropriate for any existing
SC, the JTC 1 Secretariat may perform the duties normally
assigned to the SC Secretariat until the final SC assignment is
determined. The JTC 1 Secretariat shall ensure that the
ballot resolution
meeting is open to representation from all affected interests and
is convened in a timely manner in keeping with the spirit of the
fast-track process.
|
The
proposer of a fast-track document is encouraged to make a
recommendation concerning the assignment of the document to a
given SC. The proposer of a fast-track document shall submit the
name of an individual who has agreed to serve
as project editor for the fast-track document. This recommendation
(or in its absence, the JTC 1 Secretariat's recommendation) shall
be circulated to JTC 1 NBs together with the DIS ballot (see Form
G18).
Separately from its vote on the technical content of the standard,
NBs shall be given the opportunity to
comment
on the specific assignment. However, comments on assignment shall
not influence the vote on ISO/IEC
Directives, 5th Edition Version 2.0, 56 technical content.
In cases where the SC assignment is in question or where the
fast-track document does not appear appropriate for any existing
SC, the JTC 1 Secretariat may perform the duties normally assigned
to the
SC
Secretariat until the final SC assignment is determined. The JTC 1
Secretariat shall ensure that the ballot
resolution
meeting is open to representation from all affected interests and
is convened in a timely manner in
keeping
with the spirit of the fast-track process.
|
The
proposer of a fast-track document is encouraged to make a
recommendation concerning the assignment of the document to a
given SC. The proposer of a fast-track document shall submit the
name of an individual who has agreed to serve
as project editor for the fast-track document. This recommendation
(or in its absence, the JTC 1 Secretariat’s recommendation)
shall be circulated to JTC 1 NBs together with the DIS ballot (see
Form G18). Separately from its vote on the technical content of
the standard, NBs shall be given the opportunity to comment on the
specific assignment. However, comments on assignments shall
not influence the vote on technical content.
In cases where SC assignment is in question or where the
fast-tract document does not appear appropriate for any existing
SC, the JTC 1 Secretariat may perform the duties normally assigned
to the SC Secretariat until the final SC assignment is determined.
In such cases, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall ensure that the ballot
resolution meeting is open to representation from all affected
interests and is convened in a timely manner, keeping in mind the
spirit of the fast-track process. The
proposer of the fast-track document has the right to withdraw the
fast-track document from the fast-
track
process at any point prior to the initiation of the five month
ballot.
|
|
[Note:
For an existing project which has not yet reached Stage 3 (see
12.1), an SC may suspend the 5-stage process
in favor of the fast-track procedure (to
be initiated by a P member or a Category A liaison
organization of JTC 1) provided that:
|
As
described in 12.1 an SC may suspend normal processing in favour of
the fast-track procedure (to
be initiated
by
a P-member or a Category A liaison organisation of JTC 1) provided
that:
|
As
described in 12.1 an SC may suspend normal processing in favour of
the fast-track procedure (to be initiated by a P member or a
Category A liaison organisation of JTC 1) provided that:
|
|
13.2
The proposal shall be received by the ITTF
which shall take the following actions:
settle
the copyright
or trademark
situation, or both, with the proposer, so that the proposed text
can be freely copied and distributed within ISO/IEC without
restriction;
assess
in consultation with the JTC 1 Secretariat that JTC 1
is the competent committee for the subject covered in the
proposed standard and ascertain that there is no evident
contradiction with other ISO/IEC standards;
distribute
the text of the proposed standard (or amendment) as a DIS (or
DAM), indicating that the standard belongs in the domain of JTC 1
(see Form G11).
In case of particularly bulky documents the ITTF may demand the
necessary number of copies from the proposer.
|
13.2
The proposal for
the fast-track
procedure shall be received by the ITTF which
shall take the following actions:
Settle
the copyright or trademark situation, or both, with the proposer,
so that the proposed text can be freely copied and distributed
within ISO/IEC without restriction;
Assess
in consultation with the JTC 1 Secretariat that JTC 1 is the
competent committee for the subject covered in the proposed
standard and ascertain that there is no evident contradiction
with other ISO/IEC standards;
Distribute
the text of the proposed standard (or amendment) as a DIS (or
DAM), indicating that the standard belongs in the domain of JTC 1
(see Form G12).
In case of particularly bulky documents the ITTF may demand the
necessary number of copies from the proposer.
|
13.2
The proposal for the fast-track procedure shall be received by the
ITTF which
shall take the following actions:
Settle
the copyright or trademark situation, or both, with the proposer,
so that the proposed text can be freely copied and distributed
within ISO/IEC without restriction;
Assess
in consultation with the JTC 1 Secretariat that JTC 1 is the
competent committee for the subject covered in the proposed
standard and ascertain that there is no evident contradiction
with other ISO/IEC standards;
Distribute
the text of the proposed standard (or amendment) as a DIS (or
DAM), indicating that the text of the standard belongs in the
domain of JTC 1 (see Form G12). In case of particularly bulky
documents the ITTF may demand the necessary number of copies from
the proposer.
|
|
13.3
The period for combined DIS (or DAM) voting shall be six months.
In order to be accepted the document must meet the criteria of
9.6.
|
13.3
The period for combined DIS (or DAM) voting shall be six months.
This
shall consist of a 30-day JTC 1 National Body review period
followed by a five-month ballot. In
order to be accepted the document must meet the criteria of 9.6.
|
13.3
The period for combined DIS (or DAM) voting shall be six months.
This shall consist of a 30-day JTC 1 National Body review period
followed by a five-month ballot. In order to be accepted the
document must meet criteria 9.6.
|
|
13.4
Upon receipt of notification from the ITTF that a document has
been registered for fast-track processing, the JTC 1
Secretariat shall inform the Secretariat of the SC recommended for
assignment of the project
of the fast-track processed DIS (or DAM) number, title, and ballot
period dates, and shall send the SC Secretariat a copy of the DIS
(or DAM). The
JTC 1 Secretariat shall also inform the ITTF of the SC that
will deal with the ballot results, in order that the table of
replies and any comments accompanying the votes may be sent by
ITTF directly to the SC
Secretariat
as well as to the JTC 1 Secretariat.
|
13.4
Upon receipt of notification from the ITTF that a document has
been registered for fast-track processing, the
JTC
1 Secretariat shall inform the Secretariat of the SC recommended
for assignment of the project of the fast-
track
processed DIS (or DAM) number, title, and ballot period dates, and
shall send the SC Secretariat a copy of
the
DIS (or DAM).
If
the JTC 1 Secretariat has received any comments during the 30-day
review period, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall circulate the comments
and the disposition
of such comments among the JTC 1 National Bodies for the
transparency of the process.
During
the 30-day review period, an NB may identify to the JTC 1
Secretariat any perceived contradiction with other JTC 1, ISO or
IEC standards.
If
such a contradiction is alleged, the matter shall be resolved by
the ITTF and JTC 1 Secretariat in accordance
with
Section 13.2 before ballot voting can commence.
If no contradiction is alleged, the fast-track ballot voting
commences
immediately following the 30-day period.
In
either case, the ballot voting period shall be five months.
Prior
to the start of the ballot, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall also
inform the ITTF of the SC that will deal with the ballot results,
in order that the table of replies and any comments accompanying
the votes may be sent by ITTF directly to the SC Secretariat as
well as to the JTC 1 Secretariat.
|
13.4
Upon receipt of notification from the ITTF that a document has
been registered for fast-track processing, the JTC 1 Secretariat
shall inform the Secretariat of the SC recommended for assignment
of the project of the fast-track processed DIS (or DAM) number,
title, and ballot period dates, and shall send the SC Secretariat
a copy of the DIS (or DAM).
During
the 30-day review period, a NB may identify to the JTC 1
Secretariat any perceived contradiction
with
other standards or approved projects
of JTC 1, ISO or IEC.
If
such a contradiction is alleged, the matter shall be addressed by
the ITTF and JTC 1Secretariat in accordance with Section 13.2
before ballot voting can commence. If
no contradiction is alleged, the 5 month fast-track ballot voting
commences immediately following the 30-day period.
If
a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall
make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three
month period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track
document, the NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others,
as they deem necessary. A
meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be convened by the
JTC 1 Secretariat, if required.
If
the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for
fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be
considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document,
to be processed as a new proposal.
If
the resolution results in no change to the document or if a
resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot
commences immediately after such a determination is made.
The
JTC 1 Secretariat shall circulate the comments and the disposition
of such comments to JTC 1 National Bodies and the ITTF will
include this information with the fast-track ballot for the
transparency of the process.
Prior
to the start of the ballot, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall also
inform the ITTF of the SC that will deal with the ballot results,
in order that the table of replies and any comments accompanying
the votes may be sent by ITTF directly to the SC Secretariat as
well as to the JTC 1 Secretariat.
|
|
13.5
Upon receipt of the notification from the JTC 1 Secretariat
that its SC has been assigned the responsibility for dealing with
a fast-track processed DIS (or DAM), the SC Secretariat
shall so inform the SC NBs, and shall make plans for the handling
of ballot results through the formation of a ballot resolution
group, as follows. The SC Secretariat shall:
notify
the SC NBs of the ballot resolution
group meeting date(s), location, Convener, and Project Editor.
In
some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution
group is unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign the task
directly to the Project Editor.
|
13.5
Upon receipt of the notification from the JTC 1 Secretariat that
its SC has been assigned the responsibility
for
dealing with a fast-track processed DIS (or DAM), the SC
Secretariat shall so inform the SC NBs, and shall
make
plans for the handling of ballot results through the formation of
a ballot resolution group, as follows. The SC
Secretariat
shall:
Notify
the SC NBs of the ballot resolution group meeting date(s),
location, Convener, and Project Editor.
In
some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution group is
unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign
the
task directly to the Project Editor.
|
13.5
Upon receipt of the notification from the JTC 1 Secretariat that
its SC has been assigned the responsibility for dealing with a
fast-track processed DIS (or DAM), the SC Secretariat shall so
inform the SC NBs, and shall make plans for the handling of ballot
results through the formation of a ballot
resolution
group, as follows. The SC Secretariat shall:
In
some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution group is
unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign the task directly to
the Project Editor.
|
|
13.6
Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC
Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs. The NBs
shall be requested to consider the comments and to form opinions
on their acceptability. The SC Secretariat shall also send
notification of the ballot resolution
group meeting to any NBs having voted to disapprove the DIS (or
DAM) that are not NBs of the SC.
Comments
received after the normal voting
period
will not be taken into account, except that they will be submitted
to the appropriate SC Secretariat for consideration at the time of
the next review of the IS in question.
|
13.6
Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC
Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs. The NBs
shall be requested to consider the comments and to form opinions
on their acceptability. The SC Secretariat shall also send
notification of the ballot resolution group meeting to any NBs
having voted to disapprove the DIS (or DAM) that are not NBs of
the SC.
Comments
received after the normal voting
period will not be taken into account, except that they will be
submitted
to the appropriate SC Secretariat for consideration at the time of
the next review of the IS in question.
|
13.6
Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC
Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs,
to any NBs having voted that are not members of the SC and to the
proposer. The
NBs shall be requested to consider the comments and to form
opinions on their acceptability. The
SC Secretariat shall also send notification of the ballot
resolution group meeting to SC NBs, to any NBs having voted that
are not members of the SC and to the proposer. Comments
received after the normal
voting period will not be taken into account, except that they
will be submitted to the appropriate SC
Secretariat
for consideration at the time of the next review of the IS in
question.
|
|
13.7
NBs
of the relevant SC shall appoint to the ballot resolution
group one or more representatives who are well aware of the NB's
position. NBs having voted negatively, whether or not an NB of
the relevant SC, have a duty to delegate a representative to the
ballot resolution
group meeting.
|
13.7
NBs of the relevant SC shall appoint to the ballot resolution
group one or more representatives who are well aware of the NB's
position. NBs having voted negatively, whether or not an NB of the
relevant SC, have a duty to
delegate
a representative to the ballot resolution group meeting.
|
13.7
NBs of the relevant SC shall appoint to the ballot resolution
group one or more representatives who are well aware of the NB’s
position. NBs having voted negatively, whether or not a NB of the
relevant SC, have a duty to delegate a representative to the
ballot resolution meeting.
|
|
13.8
At the ballot resolution
group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by
consensus.
If a vote is unavoidable the vote of the NBs will be taken
according to normal JTC 1 procedures.
|
13.8
At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be
reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is
unavoidable
the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1
procedures.
|
13.8
At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be
reached preferably by consensus. If a
vote
is unavoidable the vote of the NBs will be taken according to
normal JTC 1 procedures.
|
|
13.9
If, after the deliberations of this ballot resolution
group, the requirements of 9.6 are met, the Project Editor
shall prepare the amended DIS (or DAM) and send it to the SC
Secretariat who shall forward it to the ITTF
for publication as an IS.
For its initial publication, the document is not required to be
in ISO/IEC format, but can be published in the format of the
submitting organization.
|
13.9
If, after the deliberations of this ballot resolution group, the
requirements of 9.6 are met, the Project Editor shall prepare the
amended DIS (or DAM) and send it to the SC Secretariat who shall
forward it to the ITTF for publication as an IS. For its initial
publication, the document is not required to be in ISO/IEC format,
but can be published in the format of the submitting organisation.
|
13.9
If, after the deliberations of this ballot resolution group, the
requirements of 9.6 are met, the Project Editor shall prepare the
revised DIS (or DAM) and send it to the SC Secretariat who shall
forward it to the ITTF for publication as an IS. For its initial
publication, the document is not required to be in ISO/IEC format,
but can be published in the format of the submitting organization.
|
|
13.10
If it is impossible to agree to a text meeting the above
requirements, the proposal has failed and the procedure is
terminated.
|
13.10
If it is impossible to agree to a text meeting the above
requirements, the proposal has failed and the procedure is
terminated.
|
13.10
If it is impossible to agree to a text meeting the above
requirements, the proposal has failed and the procedure is
terminated.
|
|
13.11
In either case the Convener,
in coordination with the Project Editor, shall prepare a full
report
which shall be distributed by the SC Secretariat to its NBs and to
the ITTF.
|
3.11
In either case the Convener, in coordination with the Project
Editor, shall prepare a full report which shall
be
distributed by the SC Secretariat to its NBs and to the ITTF.
|
13.11
In either case the Convener, in coordination with the Project
Editor, shall prepare a full report which shall be distributed by
the SC Secretariat to its NBs and to any NBs having voted that are
not members of the SC, to the proposer and to the ITTF.
|
|
13.12
The time period for these different steps shall be:
|
13.12
The time period for these different steps shall be:
|
13.12
The time period for post ballot activities by the respective
responsible parties shall be as follows:
Immediately
after the vote, ITTF shall send the results of the
vote to the JTC 1 Secretariat and to the SC Secretariat, and for
the latter to distribute the results without delay to its NBs, to
any NBs having voted that are not members of the SC and to
the proposer;
|
|
13.13
If the proposed standard is accepted and published, its
maintenance will be handled by JTC 1.
|
13.13
If the proposed standard is accepted and published, its
maintenance will be handled by JTC 1.
|
13.13
If the proposed standard is accepted and published, its
maintenance will be handled by JTC 1
and/or
a JTC 1 designated maintenance group in accordance with the JTC 1
rules.
|
|
13.14
Subsequent revisions shall be in the format prescribed by the
ISO/IEC Directives
- Part 3. In this case, the ITTF
editor shall check the text received to ensure that it is in
conformance with the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 3. If modifications
are considered necessary, the ITTF editor shall submit proposals
for modification to the Project Editor
for approval. No IS shall be published without such approval.
ITTF
shall prepare a proof
of the IS and send this to the Project Editor for endorsement.
The only changes
permissible at this stage are corrections of recognized errors in
the revised text or of errors introduced by ITTF in preparing the
proof.
Upon
receipt of the endorsed proof from the Project Editor, ITTF shall
make any final corrections required and proceed with publication
of the IS (or amendment).
|
13.14
Subsequent revisions shall be in the format prescribed by the
ISO/IEC Directives Part 2. In this case, the
ITTF
editor shall check the text received to ensure that it is in
conformance with the ISO/IEC Directives Part 2. If
modifications
are considered necessary, the ITTF editor shall submit proposals
for modification to the Project Editor for approval. No IS shall
be published without such approval.
ITTF
shall prepare a proof of the IS and send this to the Project
Editor for endorsement. The only changes
permissible
at this stage are corrections of recognised errors in the revised
text or of errors introduced by ITTF in
preparing
the proof.
Upon
receipt of the endorsed proof from the Project Editor, ITTF shall
make any final corrections required and
proceed
with publication of the IS (or amendment).
|
13.14
Subsequent revisions shall be in the format prescribed by the
ISO/IEC Directives Part 2. in this case, the ITTF editor shall
check the text received to ensure that it is in conformance with
the ISO/IEC Directives Part 2. If modifications are considered
necessary, the ITTF editor shall submit proposals for modification
to the Project Editor for approval. No IS shall be published
without such approval.
ITTF
shall prepare a proof of the IS and send this to the Project
Editor for endorsement
including identification of the changes made.
The only changes permissible at this stage are corrections of
recognised errors in the revised text or errors introduced by ITTF
in preparing the proof.
Upon
receipt of the endorsed proof from the Project Editor, ITTF shall
make any final corrections required and proceed with publication
of the IS (or amendment).
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 02:46 PM EST |
| And make clickies if you know how. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PHB using OOXML? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 04:56 PM EST
- Smile of the day [.JPG] - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 05:16 PM EST
- LOL: Lawyer reportedly claims URL's are Intellectual Property - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 06:16 PM EST
- Latest on BBC iPlayer - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 06:29 PM EST
- Dafter than SCO..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 06:46 PM EST
- Microsoft 425 years behind the times - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 08:02 PM EST
- De Icaza apologizes. - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 08:24 PM EST
- Moonlight - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 09:08 PM EST
- Moonlight - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 09:25 PM EST
- Infected by MS think - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 09:27 PM EST
- New byline (article) at ClientServer News-LinuxGram - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 11:19 PM EST
- Anyone know of a USB to VGA adapter good with the XO laptop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 12:42 AM EST
- ssh - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 01:53 AM EST
- VNC, OLPC wiki - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 02:22 AM EST
- VNC, OLPC wiki - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 11:23 AM EST
- Google is Your Friend - Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 02:45 AM EST
- SCOXQ.pk sealed filings in Novell case - Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 04:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 02:46 PM EST |
If I'm first here, it's the first time in ages. :-)
---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Click the "Weeble" link for Copying Permissions and Contact Info.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 02:47 PM EST |
| And please refer to the article title in the post title [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 03:07 PM EST |
| Is that midnight at the beginning or at the end of March 29? I believe midnight
at the end of that day is the moment where Europeans change to Summer
Time.
Midnight CET is 7 pm EDT the evening before for us in the New World.
So it is either Friday or Saturday evening.
If the votes at the deadline are
not to M$'s liking, maybe they will change it to March 29 on the Julian
calendar.
I'm feeling cynical today. And why not? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zcat on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 03:13 PM EST |
Why even bother with this farce? As you observe, they seem willing to bent the
rules in favor or MSFT at every opportunity. Why not save us all the hassle and
expense, stop pretending to follow any rules, rubber-stamp the darn standard and
we can move directly to the next stage; ignoring the ISO because they've become
as reputable a standards body as the European Committee of Microsoft Advocates.
Oh look; more 'support' for OOXML on Linux;
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2094
Wake me up when they write a translator that works in both directions and
consistently gets the formatting reasonably close to how it looks on Office
2007..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 03:48 PM EST |
... fawn ...
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eskild on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 04:15 PM EST |
* Edition 5 version 3 current since 2007-04-05
* Edition 5 version 2, effective 2006-04-12
* Edition 4
DIS 29500 was submitted to JTC1 in march 2007, I believe.
Edition5 version 2 must be the applicable version
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 04:20 PM EST |
Be sure to send it Registered, Return Receipt. Maybe with a notice of the
attempted delivery dates. And send it soon - before the M$ shysters get around
to sending the receiving parties on an all-expense paid vacation. Without
mail. Or cellphones. To Antarctica probably.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What to write? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 05:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 04:58 PM EST |
I'm sorry PJ but at this point in time I can only consider
these guys as corrupt and manipulative as Microsoft and
while they might talk standards, they are not the really
interested in such things.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 05:48 PM EST |
| I am curious to know whether any court, anywhere, has jurisdiction over an
organisation like ISO. (I don't mean if they break criminal law, everyone comes
under their local legal system for such things.) They seem to have bent or
broken their own rules. What I am thinking is that maybe they have some document
such as a charter that says how they will operate, which like a contract will
have legal status. So maybe someone, somewhere is eligible to ask a court for an
injunction to make them abide by their own rules and prevent this nonsense going
any further? Obviously IANAL, so maybe it is just wishful thinking? Another
aspect to the question is whether there has been a breach of criminal law, as I
understand that bribery is a crime in most countries, and there have been
suggestions of bribery. Whether true or mere imagination, I don't know. Maybe
not enough to stand up in court, or even be stated as fact on Groklaw, but the
word has been used. So could or should there be a criminal investigation? One
thing is encouraging, Neelie Kroes and her department are taking a close
interest, but it sems unlikely that their investigation will be completed
quickly. However, when it is completed, and it will be, thoroughly and
competently, based on past performance, I imagine there may be problems for
OOXML, ECMA, ISO and M$. But by then the dangerously defective standard, to
which M$ do not, and possibly never will, comply, will have been used by the
Monopoly to deceive the gullible into committing to yet more vendor lock-in.
That, the world does not need. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 07:44 PM EST |
| See Doug Mahugh blog. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 08:34 PM EST |
Call me naive, but I still can't believe ISO will throw 60 years of honorable
history into the trash for a handful of Microsoft rice.
I hope the EU subpoenas the bank records of everyone who votes
in favor of OOXML.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 10:17 PM EST |
A search of The Economist's database for the past few years yields
no results for the terms BRM and OOXML.
Must not be very important.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
It would interesting to find out just how many fast tracks have been done of
proposed "standards" they have done in relation to the said proposal's
number of pages.
It still baffles me how anyone and I mean anyone could possibly think a 6000
page proposed standard could be fast tracked. And just what is the criteria for
fast tracking.... oh wait, that seems to depend on WHO you are and how easy they
figure it is to get away with changing the rules before, during and after the
process.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
Just reposted to Dough's blog as it didn't appear the first time :-O... I'll
reply if I notice it published this time:
>>>
Hi Doug, I would appreciate a set of links to INCITS and ANSI that provide the
bylaws, principles, and guidelines that provide the governance and decision
criteria used by V1 and the INCITS board when voting on ISO standards proposals
on behalf of all citizens of the USA.
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 10 2008 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
| from a Rob Weir blog post comment
I've been meaning to write about that
at some point. But you are correct that in its latest revision, which was not
sent to NB's until after the DIS 29500 process had already started, two
important changes where made to the Directives[:]
The first one removed the
teeth from the contradiction clause. The second allows maintenance of fast
tracks to be reverted back to the submitter. By some amazing coincidence, DIS
29500 is using both new loopholes. How lucky is that? Two random changes made to
the Directives,and both are immediately advantageous to Ecma. That is why I
continue to say that Ecma is the Fast Track specialists, and membership is well
worth the price for the concierge service alone.
( http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/jtc1-improv-comedy-theater.ht
ml#7485441011810841014 )
--Carlos [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
![Smile of the day [.JPG]](http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080307134529861&title=Smile+of+the+day+%5B.JPG%5D&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=677853#c677888){kind=link}