From JLS@liverpool.ac.uk Tue Oct 13 16:19:55 1992 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10762; Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:19:55 +0100 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8198; Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:19:50 DNT Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6730; Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:19:50 DNT Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0708; Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:11:17 BST Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9346; Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:11:16 BST Via: UK.AC.LIV.LIVBIRD; 13 OCT 92 16:11:08 BST Received: from ibm.liverpool.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP (PP) id <16304-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>; Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:12:28 +0100 Received: from UK.AC.LIVERPOOL by MAILER(4.4.t); 13 Oct 1992 16:10:43 BST Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:56:19 BST From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: CD Ballot Confusion To: SC22 members , SC22/WG5 members , UKPROGLANG Message-Id: <"liverbird..310:13.09.92.15.12.37"@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk> X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 I think the spate of letter ballots that have occurred on the question of registering a draft as a CD to be followed by a further ballot on the CD itself has caused confusion. Since the same people actually decide the national positions on both ballots in many cases there have been a number of people who thought the first ballot was the second. In fact, it appears to me to be one too many ballots. Once a WG is convinced its WD is ready for wider public scrutiny (i.e. it has been balloted within the WG or the WG has otherwise reached reasonable consensus that this stage has been reached) the draft should be registered as a CD with minimum delay and formality. The CD should then have its full national body public comment exposure and balloting. The WG should then process the comments received even if the ballot is affirmative and if necessary re ballot a revised CD before moving to a DIS ballot. This tendency to have a formal ballot about having a formal ballot appears to me to be simply adding unnecessary bureaucracy and delay into an already tortuous process. Lawrie