On discussing crossing the Ts and dotting the i's:

Surely most of them are uncontroversial and is quite simply typo error? I can see there may be one or two commas whose place are controversial.


Overall on changing the order of agenda:

Probably not a good idea. It gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the chair thinks there are tons of things to shift through in too short a time that requires rethinking of how to conduct for the meeting.

I suggests maintaining the current style, but shift through the "unimportant" materials in batch quickly. As a chair, you can suggests that NBs take trivial,small discussion offline to be resolved to make time for "important issue"

However, your "radical plan" make sense and is probably more productive in the long run. May be not for this meeting. There is simply too much politicking around. When this happens, my advise is always to stick to the Standard Operating Procedures.

I am sure you thought it through already, but is changing the game plan for the meeting chairman's prerogative or privilege? In other words, are you authorized to do this by ISO? Its important because, believe me, both sides are watching you like a hawk, ready to pounce if given a chance and especially if things did not go their way. [That's why right now I do not envy your job ]

Just my $0.02.

@Wu MingShi

> Overall on changing the order of agenda:
>
> Probably not a good idea. It gives the impression (rightly or wrongly)
> that the chair thinks there are tons of things to shift through in too
> short a time that requires rethinking of how to conduct for the meeting.

There is clearly too much to get through in the time if everything is discussed in session. Even if we just voted, by show of hands, on every proposed Ecma response and achieved the rate of a vote every two minutes (unlikely), this would take 34.1 hours (of the 35 we have).

I'm not sure this is "changing" the agenda (there is no agenda that has low-level detail like running order for the discussions), it's just refining how the agenda items should be addressed. In general, I don't think there any point being precious about this - if there's a smarter way of running the meeting, let's do it! The important thing is to do the best for the NBs.

> I suggests maintaining the current style, but shift through the
> "unimportant" materials in batch quickly. As a chair, you can suggests
> that NBs take trivial,small discussion offline to be resolved to make
> time for "important issue"
>
> However, your "radical plan" make sense and is probably more productive
> in the long run. May be not for this meeting. There is simply too much
> politicking around. When this happens, my advise is always to stick to
> the Standard Operating Procedures.
>
> I am sure you thought it through already, but is changing the game plan
> for the meeting chairman's prerogative or privilege? In other words,
> are you authorized to do this by ISO?

As convenor, I have a fair degree of autonomy in deciding how to run the meeting within the JTC 1 Directives. However, rest assured all substantial decisions are thoroughly discussed by senior ISO, IEC, JTC 1 and SC 34 officers.

> Its important because, believe me,
> both sides are watching you like a hawk, ready to pounce if given a chance
> and especially if things did not go their way. [That's why right now
> I do not envy your job ]
>
> Just my $0.02.

I predict once the BRM is over, the focus will shift very quickly to the NBs again: after all it is they who will be deciding whether to change their votes, and the BRM outcome is but one thing they will be considering ...

In reviewing the Ecma response I've noticed several cases where their proposed fixes to editorial comments have introduced new technical errors. So it isn't so easy always to tell what an "easy" fix is.

Also, you do not need to even have a show of hands to capture a consensus position. You can simply say, "Is there any objection to the approval of the resolutions in editorial batch #1?" Then pause for a few seconds and say "Hearing no objection, the resolutions of editorial batch #1 are approved." This allows you to move quickly, while still preserving an NB's ability to raise the comments that are important to them.

@Rob

You outline the best case, and it is this which initially drew me to the concept of batching comments. The downside is that NBs might raise their voices here to disagree with individual dispositoions, or disagree with the method which has been used to do the batching (who decides that? After reviewing some of the reponses I'm not confident to decide what's an "easy" comment either). If batching doesn't go smoothly, it can unravel rather badly.

- Alex.

Rob Weir wrote:

"In reviewing the Ecma response I've noticed several cases where their proposed fixes to editorial comments have introduced new technical errors."

Perhaps you are willing to share these errors with the rest of us? I'm sure ECMA and ISO would be happy to see them too.

@ Alex,
>> There is clearly too much to get through in the time
>> if everything is discussed in session

Indeed.

So, what happens if you run out of time, and finish with a large number of items that have not been discussed? Does the system default to non-approval in that case? Or is the final vote the only thing that matters?

It's not hard to foresee one side wanting to discuss important (to them) points in detail, only to have the other side accuse them of filibustering.

Cheers,

- Mike

Alex,

I'm curious how the decision was made to take one week, without provision for an extension? Clearly, no one wants to spend forever discussing one standard, but other than the practical reality that five days is the space between two weekends, there doesn't seem to be any magic to that amount of time.

Certainly, having a deadline will help people focus, but deciding in advance the amount of time that can be spent doesn't seem to serve anyone very well otherwise. It seems that with this much to cover, you're as like as not not going to be able to cover everything to everyone's satisfaction. If that's the case, some people are going to be unhappy, no matter which way the final vote comes out - either proponents will be unhappy, if DIS 29500 fails because some NB's think it's not "done," or opponents (and neutrals) will be unhappy, because they think that the standard is now adopted, even though it's not "done." And the process itself is shown to be inadequate to the challenge as well.

Andy

I have a lot of questions, and I'd love to hear your answers.

If there are so many "fixes" that you can't even address them all in the time alloted, doesn't that indicate that this standard is really inappropriate for fast tracking? Shouldn't it be dropped down to the regular track that other standards go through, so that enough time can be alloted?

I find it somewhat sketchy that only 35 hours are available for resolving complaints. If Microsoft gets its way and several hundred million (billion?) people end up using this standard, shouldn't it be given the time required to resolve all of the comments? (Though, I understand some of them are contradictory, so it may not even be possible...)

Is there a mechanism for extending the resolution period? What happens to comments that won't be addressed?

From my own perspective, I really have to wonder how member countries can be expected to vote for a proposed standard when a significant number of their comments won't even be discussed.

Good luck finding the best way to structure the meeting.

Anthony

@Mike

> So, what happens if you run out of time, and finish with
> a large number of items that have not been discussed? Does
> the system default to non-approval in that case? Or is the
> final vote the only thing that matters?

The only changes that can be made to the DIS text are those which the meeting has positively resolved on.

> It's not hard to foresee one side wanting to discuss
> important (to them) points in detail, only to have the other
> side accuse them of filibustering.

It's imporant to ensure all NBs get a reasonably even chance to present their views. Any (real) filibustering will be apparent for what it is, and brought swiftly to halt.

@Andy

> I'm curious how the decision was made to take one week, without
> provision for an extension? Clearly, no one wants to spend forever
> discussing one standard, but other than the practical reality that
> five days is the space between two weekends, there doesn't seem to
> be any magic to that amount of time.

The decision to schedule the BRM strictly as a five-day meeting was taken at a very high level within ISO/IEC. I am informed that such timetabling has happened before.

> Certainly, having a deadline will help people focus, but deciding in
> advance the amount of time that can be spent doesn't seem to serve
> anyone very well otherwise. It seems that with this much to cover,
> you're as like as not not going to be able to cover everything to
> everyone's satisfaction.

You're right in that some people from both "sides" consider 5 days too little. However, on the other hand some standards veterans think this DIS is taking quite enough time already, thank you very much!

And of course in the view of some people, n days will not be sufficient time, where n is any number.

> If that's the case, some people are going
> to be unhappy, no matter which way the final vote comes out - either
> proponents will be unhappy, if DIS 29500 fails because some NB's
> think it's not "done," or opponents (and neutrals) will be unhappy,
> because they think that the standard is now adopted, even though
> t's not "done." And the process itself is shown to be inadequate
> to the challenge as well.

Ecma chose to fast track the DIS, knowing perhaps more than anyone about both the spirit and the letter of the Fast Track process. In the end, it's up to the NBs whether the DIS gets passed or not, and a consideration of whether the process is adequate is a perfectly legitimate question they can ask themselves in making their decision, as this FAQ item makes clear.

@Anthony


> If there are so many "fixes" that you can't even address them all
> in the time alloted, doesn't that indicate that this standard is
> really inappropriate for fast tracking?

It depends on the quantity and nature of issues left unresolved. NBs can make their minds up when they know the outcome of the BRM.

> Shouldn't it be dropped down to the regular track that other
> standards go through, so that enough time can be alloted?

There is no mechanism in JTC 1 which allows a standard to be demoted from the Fast Track.

> I find it somewhat sketchy that only 35 hours are available for
> resolving complaints. If Microsoft gets its way and several hundred
> million (billion?) people end up using this standard, shouldn't it
> be given the time required to resolve all of the comments? (Though,
> I understand some of them are contradictory, so it may not even be
> possible...)

One of the aspects of the Fast Track is that time itself is limited (hence "fast"). Although the meeting sessions are 35 hours, do bear in mind that the process of "resolution" in practice involves the original NB reviews and proposals, Ecma's proposed responses, and the ongoing informal discussions between Ecma and NBs.

> Is there a mechanism for extending the resolution period?

No.

> What happens to comments that won't be addressed?

I am considering issuing voting papers at the BRM which will allow voting NBs to register their judgements on all 1,000 comments/responses irrespective of whether they are discussed in session or not.

> From my own perspective, I really have to wonder how member countries
> can be expected to vote for a proposed standard when a significant
> number of their comments won't even be discussed.

There are different things that can happen to comments, whether they are discussed/addressed is one thing, but what really matters to NBs is whether their comments are resolved. They will only know that for sure when the BRM has done its work.

> and the ongoing informal discussions between Ecma and NBs.

I wonder if the US national body has already informed Ecma of the issues Rob Weir has found in the disposition.

hello all, hello Mr. Brown



i'm from Argentina, a computer user and software developer. I still believe that standards and standardization *could* be useful and desirable for "normal" people and end users, not only to corporations and satellite companies, so ... i'm following closely and with deeply interest all this process ( DIS 29500 fast-tracking ).



Unfortunately my standards organization ( IRAM, Argentinian NB ) won't be participating in this fast-tracking process ( abstained ), like lot of other National Bodies that don't have interest or sufficient expertise to do it ( by the way i prefer this and no what other National Bodies seems have done: participating giving unconditional approval to the DIS, only because there is a powerful company backing it )



I would like to say that i'm worried to read phrases like this:



"..."straightforward” issues"

"...discussing them quickly in batches..."

"...more radical plan: not discussing these “easy” issues at all"

"...deferring them to ballot papers that NB delegations can complete “off line”"

"...missing commas and the like."

"...SC 34 has issued a request for NBs to submit a shortlist"



i don't know you Mr. Brown, but having seen your work on BSI regarding this proposal ( DIS 29500 ) and your blogs posting, i'm confident that you will find the best criteria to handle this, IMHO, overflowed ISO process.



( i say "overflowed", because since the beginning all has been "big" in this process: +6000 pages of DIS, +100 pages of contradictions, +60 pages of contradictions responses, +3500 NB comments, +2200 pages of comments responses, now may be +1000 pages of deprecated annexes, but editorial and technical quality, proper reviewing and time have been _very_ small ).



i'm worried to still see the constant Leit-motiv that has characterized the Microsoft and ECMA responses to NBs: try to dismiss, diminish, underestimate and minimalize NBs concerns, observations, comments and fundamental proposals and the urgent need to quickly move on, no matter how ( as someone said: "quick and dirty style of standardization" )



Examples:



i) Declarations of Microsoft's director of corporate standards, Jason Matusow, regarding ECMA/Microsoft recent DIS 29500 fix proposals:



"3,522 comments were addressed in the dispositions. It does not mean

that each NB must review all 3,522. They need to review their own

comments, and the dispositions for those comments. For all countries,

this is a much shorter list. Even within those lists, the NBs then

need to think about which of their comments are most critical to

them." ( http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/arch ... y-ibm.aspx )



ii) ECMA ignoring ( dismissing ) AFNOR proposal to split OOXML in core/legacy parts, change status to technical specification and process of convergence of ODF and OOXML.



It seems that the proposers see National Bodies as hurdles that have to be crossed no matter how and that they are kindly saying: "NB, we have addressed 100% of your comments, now please let us move on and get ISO fast-tracking status"



I hope this worries will prove to be unfounded, but i wanted to let you know what i think and fear.



Orlando Marcelo

'There is clearly too much to get through in the time if everything is
discussed in session. Even if we just voted, by show of hands, on every
proposed Ecma response and achieved the rate of a vote every two minutes
(unlikely), this would take 34.1 hours (of the 35 we have).'

Doesn't this just reinforce the fact that DIS29500 is not suitable for fast
tracking and should be rejected and resubmitted in the normal manner?


'The decision to schedule the BRM strictly as a five-day meeting was taken
at a very high level within ISO/IEC. I am informed that such timetabling has
happened before.'

You mean you are only following orders? I'm sorry Alex, that's a very shallow
answer.


This whole issue seems have burst out of the normally 'quiet/diligent/behind
the scenes work' of ISO and become a major talking point in the IT world.
Surely the duration and capacity of this meeting (not to mention the
obscurity) could be extended?

Best of Britsh luck Alex, the eyes of the world are on you.

Tony

@Tony

It's simply not in my power to extend the meeting. As I've pointed out, if the NBs aren't happy with the process their recourse is to disapprove the DIS.

Contentious topics like this flare up from time-to-time in ISO/IEC. I've previously blogged about the fabulously controversial ODA, but because this was in the pre-blog era we did not then have Wang and Olivetti (or whoever) waging a PR war in public.

Eyes of the world eh? I know the players in this process take blogging very seriously - you only need to monitor the effort going into blogging to appreciate that. However, if Google Analytics does not lie, I think that some people over-estimate the interest in this topic: it seems to me that it's only a few hundred standards execs, journos, standards wonks and FOSS activitists who are really interested ...