From martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov Fri Nov 18 02:02:01 1994 Received: from ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA12335 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:02:13 +0100 Received: by ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA17215; Fri, 18 Nov 94 10:02:01 PST Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 10:02:01 PST From: martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (Jeanne T Martin) Message-Id: <9411181802.AA17215@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov> To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: New DIS Rules X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 To: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 From: Jeanne Martin, Acting Convenor Subject: The new rules for DIS ballots Below is some correspondence with Bob Follett, Chair of SC22, regarding the interpretation of the new rules for processing DIS ballots. Note that we can no longer consider the time following a successful DIS ballot as a period when it is possible to "clean up" the draft. To get Fortran 95 standardized according to our time schedule, it has to be finished before the DIS ballot. _____________________________________________________________________________ > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 21:03:14 -0500 (EST) > From: Bob Follett > To: Jeanne T Martin > Subject: Re: (SC22.651) JTC1 Plenary, 24-28 October 1994 in Geneva > > Hello, Jeanne. > > The intent is to pattern the new DIS procedure after the current IEC > procedure. As I understand Jack Sheldon's explanation in our Ad Hoc > meeting, the answer to both of your questions is No. The concept is that > the DIS text is essentially camera-ready copy - a proof if you will. You > can make the kind of corrections you would make on a proof - for misprints, > typographical errors - but no editorial or technical changes. > > Since this is quite a radical change, the implementation date was set at > 1 April 1996 to allow all SCs to discuss it at their plenaries and make > sure they could adjust to it. > > Regards, > Bob > > On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, Jeanne T Martin wrote: > > > Bob - > > > > As the new rules for DIS ballots will go into effect before the completion > > of the DIS ballot for Fortran 95, some questions arose at last week's X3J3 > > meeting. Perhaps you could help me answer them. According to your report: > > > > > > > > Of considerable significance to us, JTC1 adopted a new mode of processing > > > DIS ballots, similar to the new IEC method. Beginning in April 1996, no > > > technical or editorial changes will be allowed to DIS texts and P-members > > > will respond with a simple Yes, No, or Abstain. (Negative ballots will > > > still require reasons to be stated.) Only minor corrections will be > > > permitted, e.g., misspellings and printing errors. We will therefore have > > > to produce the final text on the final CD ballot in SC22. If the DIS > > > ballot passes, it goes to publication immediately (after any minor > > > corrections are applied). If it fails, it reverts to Stage 2, meaning > > > that it must reenter Stage 3 and undergo CD balloting before it can > > > advance again to DIS Stage. The transition time from now through March > > > 1996 is intended to give SCs and NBs a chance to understand and adjust to > > > the new procedure. We will of course discuss this at our next plenary but > > > in the meantime, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. > > > (See Attachment 1.) > > > > > > > > > ATTACHMENT 1 > > > > > > JTC1 RESOLUTION ON SIMPLIFIED DIS PROCESSING > > > > > > In order to assist harmonization of DIS processing throughout ISO and IEC, > > > JTC1 resolves to modify its DIS balloting procedures for projects > > > following the full five stage process for technical work as defined in the > > > JTC1 Directives (does not apply to ballots under the DISP or Fast Track > > > procedures); to take effect from 1st April 1996, as follows:=20 > > > > > > a) A DIS vote shall take place at Stage 4 by means of a four month letter > > > ballot carried out by the combined voting procedure.=20 > > > > > > b) JTC 1 P-members have an obligation to vote and may respond with a YES, > > > NO or ABSTAIN indication.=20 > > > > > > c) In the event of a negative ballot, P-members shall indicate the reasons > > > for their disapproval.=20 > > > > > > d) Only minor corrections will be taken into consideration as > > > modifications to the DIS ballot text.=20 > > > > > > e) If the criteria in 9.6 of the JTC1 Directives are met, the standard > > > shall be sent for publication immediately. The SC secretariat will take > > > into account any minor corrections submitted with the ballot, but > > > technical and editorial comments will not be considered.=20 > > > > > > f) If the criteria of 9.6 are not met, the project reverts to Stage 2, and > > > the comments on the ballot (including any technical comments) are referred > > > back to the appropriate SC for their consideration and recommendation for > > > further processing.=20 > > > > > > g) The JTC1 secretariat is requested to prepare proposed changes to the > > > JTC1 Directives to implement the revised balloting procedures and to > > > version of the text, if necessary, in the revision of the JTC1 Directives > > > to be balloted as the fourth edition.=20 > > > > > > JTC 1 SCs and NBLOs are strongly encouraged to ensure that any > > > recommendations to ballot drafts at DIS level are based on texts whose > > > quality will maximize the number of successful ballots.=20 > > > > > > > > Our questions involve changes to the informative parts of the draft > > standard. > > > > 1) Would it be possible to replace the DIS index with a better index after > > a successful DIS ballot, but before publication? > > > > 2) Suppose there is a comment returned with a negative ballot that says > > some section of the standard is not clear. Would it be possible to > > add some text to an informative Annex explaining the text before > > publication? > > > > Thanks for your help, > > > > Jeanne Martin > > email: jtm@llnl.gov postal code: L-300 > > phone: (510) 422-3753 fax: (510) 423-8704 > > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > > Livermore, CA 94550 > > USA > > >