From owner-sc35wg2+sc35wg2-domo2=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Jan 28 18:50:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc35wg2-domo2 Delivered-To: sc35wg2-domo2@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 2124635851E; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:22 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc35wg2@open-std.org Received: from rap.rap.dk (0x5551165b.adsl.cybercity.dk [85.81.22.91]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3DE358512 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by rap.rap.dk (Postfix, from userid 500) id AC0162AC1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D583567ED; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:57:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so666127qcy.39 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type; bh=BoK4km1V1jAB0+VcAoY+r9asQEexm9qrLvcCGp5EUhA=; b=txn33NMtxR62bt6+5f19Hf/GfyhhpIi4ve7RAqrXerAETWzTDKFnyuJ9wKwvAeCd98 69mDCOtCvqinrPK8VOnnnfq7Vs0PNbq+oxcEqB1N6dZUcBJMKXQCkctfB7u7EiRplz1c ol82yQt9Of3JPxyU7nSXe9C5mvSqvYx8RHR3VP6CQu5KZ2HlrajebGBdqlTiG57p5Ic7 dZyCfZyLh2UEAIKaXuo5WwjZQNUVfjtdxFfnXxLD3zF0/U+hcPiSRBH1oLmH+6WSXbBY m6pX6ld211XuOYhGNu6DGH1Z716IA8S5kieKthG+XkNsnedKfmYQnQln8mhe9ArKoXj6 drDw== X-Received: by 10.224.74.74 with SMTP id t10mr3088928qaj.82.1390921060119; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from Ovonel.gmail.com (modemcable096.160-200-24.mc.videotron.ca. [24.200.160.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v92sm11877122qge.6.2014.01.28.06.57.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20140128092950.2cca0ce0@gmail.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:57:34 -0500 To: Khalid CHOUKRI ,yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp, jeeink@gmail.com,monique.mai@orange.com,keld@keldix.com, carter@cs.usask.ca,thibault.grouas@culture.gouv.fr From: ALB Subject: Re: (SC35WG1.507) (SC35WG2.17) JTC1/SC35 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014 Cc: sc35wg1@open-std.org,philippe.magnabosco@afnor.org, mouradi amelle ,sc35wg2@open-std.org, sc35wg4@open-std.org,sc35wg6@open-std.org,sc35wg8@open-std.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_974288254==.ALT" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140128-0, 2014-01-28), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-sc35wg2@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --=====================_974288254==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 2014-01-28 à 08:32, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit : >Well I am surprised to see that (and hope this is only WG1!) , let >us discuss it again and see how to move forward. [Alain] So far I have seen unanimity of those who expressed their views from other WGs as well (Seki San, Jim, Monique, Karl, Keld, etc.). Nobody else said the view I expressed on GOM was not the best and most efficient one, and the one understood in Saskatoon too at our infornal meeting. That is why I say it is certainly only a misunderstanding between those who knew GOMs and you, Khalid (no offence intended, of course, I'm just in search of the best). Btw GOM is a concept invented by AFNOR at the time (for meetings when the secretary could not be present). It pleased everybody. It seems it still pleases. Some other remarks: 1) not all P-members are represented at Plenaries with a capital P, unfortunately. There is no reason to be more severe concerning this at resolution plenaries with a small p. In general, except for one or 2 exceptions, member bodies really participating in making projects attend all meetings (that said without diminishing the importance of others who still show their solidarity in the voting process of documents to be published, which is very important and the name of the game in international standards). 2) The notion of quorum is important (both at Plenaries and "plenaries" [GOMs]). Resolutions taken by GOMs should be as executory as those taken at Plenaries because there is a quorum (without letter ballot to approve those resolutions again). Whether these resolutions are approved in a GOM or in a single WG should not matter. In other SCs, even when there is an interim meeting (no Plenary), resolutions of WGs are executory immediately ans are not approved twice in a further letter ballot (case in point : JTC1/SC2, in which I am active both as convernor and editor). 3) GOMs just assures SC35 coherence, as there are multiple projects that inter-relates WGs (which may be not the case in other SCs). It is essential to have constant coherence, all year round. This GOM process does not violate any ISO or IEC rule to my nowledge (on the contrary, it improves efficience), it is an internal process (checked by AFNOR at the time). It also ensures there is no dispersion, and should be an asset more to ensure that nothing is forgotten, Dividing SC35 further would not be a good idea, it would be detrimental to coherence, I'm convinced about this. Alain --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com --=====================_974288254==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 2014-01-28 à 08:32, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit :
Well I am surprised to see that (and hope this is only WG1!) , let us discuss it again and see how to move forward.

[Alain]  So far I have seen unanimity of those who expressed their views from other WGs as well (Seki San, Jim, Monique, Karl, Keld, etc.). Nobody else said the view I expressed on GOM was not the best and most efficient one, and the one understood in Saskatoon too at our infornal meeting. That is why I say it is certainly only a misunderstanding between those who knew GOMs and you, Khalid (no offence intended, of course, I'm just in search of the best). Btw GOM is a concept invented by AFNOR at the time (for meetings when the secretary could not be present). It pleased everybody. It seems it still pleases.

   Some other remarks:

1) not all P-members are represented at Plenaries with a capital P, unfortunately. There is no reason to be more severe concerning this at resolution plenaries with a small p. In general, except for one or 2 exceptions, member bodies really participating in making projects attend all meetings (that said without diminishing the importance of others who still show their solidarity in the voting process of documents to be published, which is very important and the name of the game in international standards).

2) The notion of quorum is important (both at Plenaries and "plenaries" [GOMs]). Resolutions taken by GOMs should be as executory as those taken at Plenaries because there is a quorum (without letter ballot to approve those resolutions again). Whether these resolutions are approved in a GOM or in a single WG should not matter. In other SCs, even when there is an interim meeting (no Plenary), resolutions of WGs are executory immediately ans are not approved twice in a further letter ballot (case in point : JTC1/SC2, in which I am active both as convernor and editor).

3) GOMs just assures SC35 coherence, as there are multiple projects that inter-relates WGs (which may be not the case in other SCs). It is essential to have constant coherence, all year round. This GOM process does not violate any ISO or IEC rule to my nowledge (on the contrary, it improves efficience), it is an internal process (checked by AFNOR at the time). It also ensures there is no dispersion, and should be an asset more to ensure that nothing is forgotten, Dividing SC35 further would not be a good idea, it would be detrimental to coherence, I'm convinced about this.

Alain



Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.


--=====================_974288254==.ALT--