[wg11] Part 28 Ballot Resolution meeting

[Ed Barkmeyer]

David Price wrote:

> This presents us with a significant problem. The implementation of the
> single configuration we've done for STEPMod has raised serious concerns.
> These include concerns related to non-functional requirements, the
> resulting XML Schema and the Part 28 document itself. 

This is as it should be.  Part 28 is now out for ballot and comment.  If 
Eurostep has "serious concerns" to raise, the proper medium is the UK 
ballot, or perhaps the ballot of Sweden, according to the practices of 
those NBs.

> We need to have these
> concerns discussed in a larger forum than a ballot comment workshop in order
> to try and gain international consensus.

I believe that David and Heidi have managed to confuse each other with 
their terminology.

The ISO term for a "ballot comment workshop" is "editing meeting".  Its 
purpose is to gain international consensus on the changes to be made to 
a draft ISO standard.

The ISO approach to gaining such consensus is:
- distribute the Committee Draft for ballot and comment by the National 
Bodies, assuming that these ballots and comments will be developed by a 
National process for determining technical interest, concerns and expertise.
- distribute the results of the ballot with comments to all National 
Bodies, for consideration by their technical experts, in the expectation 
that all these comments will be considered for changes to the draft.
- appoint an Editing Meeting at which each contributing National Body 
can be represented by a delegation that represents the technical 
consensus of that National Body, on both its own comments and those of 
other National Bodies.
- at that Editing Meeting, achieve agreement of these delegates on an 
acceptable disposition of each comment, with corrresponding instructions 
to the Editor as to what is to be changed in the document and in what way.
- It is not always possible to achieve consensus on these changes, and 
the Editor may accept the will of the majority as direction, explicitly 
noting any dissenting NBs.  Further, any NB has the right to demand that 
  a document on which there is not consensus on all changes be 
distributed as a revised (2nd) Committee Draft for a second ballot and 
comment.

ISO provides, and SC4 practice confirms, that the Editing meeting shall 
be scheduled by agreement of the Editor, the Project Leader, and the WG 
Convenor at some time after the ballot/comment period has closed, with 
allowance for distribution of the ballots and comments to all NBs, and 
for their review and development of "technical positions" where 
necessary.  The Editing meeting should be so scheduled and located as to 
be convenient to as many actively participating NBs as possible, and in 
particular to those whose comments on the CD are of most concern, i.e. 
the meeting schedule should allow the NO votes to be properly 
represented.  The Editing meeting can be continued to a later time and 
venue if the scheduled time is not sufficient to resolve all the ballot 
comments.

I understood Heidi to be proposing an "editing meeting" at a time and 
place that are consistent with these guidelines.

The concept "workshop" does not apply to an Editing meeting, in that the 
delegations no longer function as a body of independent technical 
experts, but rather as delegates appointed to ensure that the concerns 
of their NB are satisfactorily addressed in the agreed-upon changes.  As 
needed, the Editor may open the meeting to a technical experts 
discussion, when the discussion of a comment reveals a problem for which 
no ballot comment offers a satisfactory solution.  But it is clearly not 
possible to have such a "discussion of experts" until all the comments 
have been received and reviewed.  And as far as I can tell, it is not 
possible to have a "ballot comments workshop" until an Editing meeting 
has been convened, and issues have been identified for which no NB 
comment offers an acceptable solution.  Those issues would then become 
the agenda for such a workshop.

> There was no meeting at Ft. Lauderdale and now nothing planned for Bath
> before the August workshop. No chance for issue discussion at an ISO STEP
> meeting for something as important as Part 28 seems to me to be a serious
> problem in itself.
 >
> Is there any chance of the Part 28 team reconsidering and hosting session at
> the Bath STEP meeting?

A Part 28 meeting in Bath can have no possible result.  The 
ballot/comment period will not yet have closed.  Many NB ballots will 
not yet have been submitted, and almost none of them can have been 
reviewed.  ISO directives correctly forbid an Editing meeting for Part 
28 before the ballot closes.  The time for "open technical discussions" 
is over.  The only "issues" that can be discussed now are those that 
arise from NB comments on the Part 28 progression ballot.

If there are objections to an Editing meeting in August (which the 
European community might reasonably raise "on principle"), suggestions 
for an alternative time and venue, allowing a reasonable time for 
comment review after 21 July, would certainly be in order.

-Ed

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."