[wg11] Part 28 Ballot Resolution meeting

[David Price]

Ed,

I understand the formal ISO process and agree with your description. Also, I
have no problem with the ballot workshop in August - other Europeans may
have issues about holiday though. That's not what I'm really asking about.
By the way, I don't know why, but SC4 has ever called it an "Editing
Meeting", we've always called it the "Ballot Comment Resolution Workshop" or
similar.

Back to my concern...

In SC4, the practice has not been for projects to avoid SC4 meetings. On
Part 28, delegations are being asked to vote on a document after no meetings
with the project team since October of last year. That's why I suggested not
having a meeting in Bath was not a good idea. So far, the team has been
great in responding to issues on the exploder. However, that's not always
sufficient as the discussions are spread over weeks in some cases.

On: "A Part 28 meeting in Bath can have no possible result.  The 
ballot/comment period will not yet have closed."

I beg to disagree. No opportunity for the team to explain the approach and
technical details may result in more NO votes being registered. In fact,
many project teams make a point of hosting tutorials *while the document is
out for ballot* exactly to help people understand the draft and provide
comments based on a better understanding. For something as complex as Part
28, "throwing it over the wall" to SC4 members is an unfortunate path to
take.

Apologies if my first email wasn't clear enough about the concern I was
trying to raise.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark at nist.gov]
> Sent: 20 May 2004 15:06
> To: David Price
> Cc: xmlsc4 at nist.gov; wg11 at steptools.com
> Subject: Re: [wg11] Part 28 Ballot Resolution meeting
> 
> 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."