From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Nov 3 23:18:43 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 88FCF35896E; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 23:18:43 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com (mail-qk1-f181.google.com [209.85.222.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE87356AD6 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 23:18:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id b18so16853644qkc.9 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:18:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stevelionel.com; s=google; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/AVWRGCs1jGUhibpGNpRt1JLSOWsC+lweazUkVXhXJQ=; b=Dxf7f0LkgF9/Wmm/7/BqTE7c3UKVsHB9n3YBXdJkm7YF6YWdTNYhZl6QiljIMxyx7Y vgiAFIUJQKYHplObqSClZp0I/LYMzL/bB3ZmY8sNU7AFe+4DMjvYMbPEMP32OnIN/Ntn HJ49wLpHNZjB7FURKYrHXYs9vUfcybXMmDfpw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/AVWRGCs1jGUhibpGNpRt1JLSOWsC+lweazUkVXhXJQ=; b=DaIqN/IyWZb0yaPZXb02lo2ncTVkOOdinidYGSBBgPitgfEhw4g2pv+M6aye2V48Rw 155ILyQzKdJE1dI7G67DM9A7jU2sp2HDNvjjeMqU28qt9WjzUbmGlo96tM95ocTl6rIo sffK7xH2lODnP1p4Buni+xxa8hu7t5N9EiYZhJaCinY3GUqsqkhgVvQCe8H7XgbJnyMk H83lfaoLYoX7Y5i3OaVAv8BWqvSKks0ZTruhUaqa0oNBLqtg56Md6Wnjw4/5luEg5tI8 ZTSBzTZwn5UhlCDqZvebdjEEsP4dv6kZOk/6yJSRpVO6YiZ//0InMFptJl+oiY214lOT d0cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533aY2FPiKmJT3BPA/CcsnXhsIL4CdcwgufvxRjYt29kH30g9ZCw brWTSwy9Ypm7724iW7hA1pwtOb/QM+apy+kR X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTNy976N4sxe6eak1VAp0NuD/niTGLJlk2lvwcbK6d8W1uOPflrjcITwUydCIEe4LT6rLsiw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:8542:: with SMTP id h63mr22565496qkd.102.1604441920913; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:18:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([72.71.212.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p1sm115406qkc.100.2020.11.03.14.18.39 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:18:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] ISO/IEC-proposed change to JTC 1 SD 23, Document Access References: To: WG5 List From: Steve Lionel X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Message-ID: <6fbd50af-cf7e-43a5-b20b-4b21e5032813@stevelionel.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:18:39 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk

This is fantastic news! (I submitted very strong opposition to the proposal to lock WG5 documents behind an ISO login.)

Steve

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Re: [SC 22 Convenors] ISO/IEC-proposed change to JTC 1 SD 23, Document Access
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:50:34 -0800
From:	David Keaton <dmk@dmk.com>
To:

Thank you, everybody, for your responses and contributions. I am happy to report that SC 22's rebuttal to ITTF's proposal sparked a strong reaction in our favor within JTC 1. Two other SCs and four national bodies submitted documents supporting our position, and today's discussion in the JTC 1 plenary was overwhelmingly sympathetic.

Consequently, JTC 1 will create a resolution to be passed next Monday that will express support in the strongest terms for continued open document access. ITTF's proposal to close our documents has been defeated.

David

On 9/3/20 12:07 PM, David Keaton wrote:

Dear SC 22 Convenors,

     Today, JTC 1 held a teleconference where ITTF (the combined administration of ISO and IEC) proposed changes to the JTC 1 document access rules to make most committee documents closed to the public. I have attached a copy of the current rules, and a copy of the proposed changes.

     To make sure this proposal did not go unanswered, I had to send off a quick response, which I have also attached.

     I would be interested in your feedback on the proposal and the response, either publicly or privately. The issue will be discussed again at the JTC 1 plenary during the first week of November, and your opinions will be valuable in helping to formulate my contribution to the discussion during that meeting.

                    David