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

[Michel Biezunski]

Mary, Lars, and al.,

 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.

I do too. I think it's important to clarify where we stand.

I believe that one of the sources of the problem is that the
meetings are ridiculously too long. It's practically impossible for
all of us to be present all along. Therefore any one is taking the
risk to miss an important part. There is a fix to that: reduce
drastically the duration of the meeting (1 day for example), and
focus the meeting on strategical issues: the roadmap, what are
all the subgroups doing, to be sure that we all have a common
understanding of what's happening, and we can rely on the information
we get from that meeting to report to national bodies or whoever.

This doesn't prevent any subgroup to take advantage of the
fact that the members are there together to advance the work
by face-to-face meetings. But this can be done on an optional
basis, and shouldn't interfere with the ISO standard process.


> >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.

Yes, yes and yes.

>
> 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.

I agree completely.

I believe that we have now an excellent opportunity, with
the starting work on TMCL, to review the road map, and see
how pieces articulate within each other. I think there are
issues of modularity that are raised implicitely, and the
way the SAM and the RM are divided today may not completely
cover these issues in the most optimal way. I am going to
send a more documented mail on this issue soon. But at
least I wanted to strongly support Mary and Lars' need
for rediscussing these issues.

Michel
===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================