[340000 202] Re: [sc34wg3] N358 and N372 Requires synchronization: changes in workplan, names, etc.

[Mary Nishikawa]

At 08:35 AM 1/22/03 +0100, you wrote:

>* James David Mason
>|
>| N372 is the output of a WG3 meeting. It has been accepted by
>| SC34. However, that doesn't constitute anything binding on either
>| SC34 or WG3. It's mostly just a declaration of where we think we're
>| going.
>
>I think it's time we got this on the table: personally I very strongly
>disapprove of the "process" that led to the addition of the roadmap
>text in N372 and I do not consider that we have agreed on what is
>stated there. The proposal was not properly discussed at a meeting,
>nor did everyone who should have had the opportunity have a chance to
>comment on the proposal before it was "voted" on.

I was not there, but this was the impression that I got from my colleagues 
who did attend this meeting.


>I think this is a crucial issue. In fact, it should hardly be
>necessary to say that, given that this is the roadmap or blueprint for
>everything we'll be doing over the next few years. That we agree on
>it, discuss it properly, and document it properly is supremely
>important.

I agree strongly with this too.


>My work as an author of text for the standard(s) is currently being
>held up by this, so I would very much like to have this resolved, and
>I don't think we can wait until London with working out a new and
>improved roadmap.
>
>So, what should we do? I would much prefer tearing the new roadmap to
>shreds and going back to the old one, but failing that we should
>discuss this, whether via email, phone, or IRC. We need to agree on
>the process first, though.

The national bodies are required to comment and vote on N358. That was the 
source of this mail in the first place. I can say personally that I want 
the new work project to be approved, but frankly I was quite dissatisfied 
with the new roadmap in 372. I cannot speak for the Japan National Body at 
this moment, but we will discuss this at our next meeting on Jan 31 and if 
it is appropriate, we will submit comments on 372. I would strongly suggest 
that other National Bodies do the same.

Respectly,
Mary Nishikawa