2007-12-10
Document
Title: SC34
response to List of Issues with the Alignment of the JTC 1 Processes
In
ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 8666 there is a list of Issues and Questions
Regarding the Alignment of JTC 1 Processes. SC 34 has given input to
these questions below.
Inconsistencies within the Directives in dealing with these
procedures. Should the inconsistencies be maintained (intentional
vs. accidental inconsistencies)?
Response:
We
recommend that inconsistencies between fast-track and PAS be removed.
In the following we therefore give responses that pertain to both
sets of processes.
a.
What
information should be provided to National Bodies with any proposal
(NP, Fast Track, PAS)?
Response:
We
leave NP out of the question for now. For PAS / Fast Track processing
when the proposed specification is distributed, a explanatory report
of what is and is not the actual specification and a separate concept
maintenance plan should be supplied, and an overall description of
all documents and their status written by the JTC 1 secretariat
should also be supplied.
Is the information
needed by National Bodies the same for all?
Response:
Yes
for PAS / Fast Track
Does each process have
separate requirements?
Response:
Only
during the phase of the establishment of the credentials of the
submitter. After that, it should be the same process.
Where separate
requirements exist, please list them.
Response:
None.
Should the explanatory
report be used in both the PAS and Fast Track processes and should it
be aligned with information requested on the NP form?
Response:
Yes
that sounds like a good idea.
b.
Should
the possibility of document withdrawal be aligned between PAS and
Fast Track processes?
Response:
Yes.
Withdrawal by the submittor should be possible after the DIS ballot
has finished.
c. How should the 30
Day Review Period be addressed?
Response:
The
30 day review period should be removed, as it has not led to
anything useful, even with problematic fast-tracks.
d. How should the
discrepancies in the acceptance criteria (voting process) (clause 9
and clause 14.4.3.3) be addressed?
Response:
They
should be aligned both for internal and external projects
in favor of
the Clause 9 wording, and ensure that the voting forms (Annex G) are
also consistent with Clause 9.
e.
Should
maintenance requirements be aligned between the PAS and Fast Track
processes? Should these requirements be strengthened?
Response:
Yes
they should be aligned. It should always be needed that a JTC 1 group
would be involved. The originator should also be involved, in a
cooperate effort respecting each of the set of procedures of the
participating organizations, and gathering all experts of the
involved organisations in joint meetings, along the rules stipulated
in SC34 N0587.
Should the commenting
in the enquiry stage (if applicable) and approval
stages of all
three processes be aligned? What type of comments should be
allowed
in each stage of the processes? Are the voting forms (G10 and G18)
and electronic balloting system consistent with the voting
processes?
Response:
We
should remove unneccessary differences. The forms should be removed
as all voting now is done online, and the forms next to an online
voting system are merely a source for confusion.
Is the information
required for PAS Submitter Recognition adequate? For
example,
please see items 1 and 4 contained in JTC 1 N 8632, French
Contribution on the Potential Alignment of PAS and Fast Track
Processes.
Response:
no
comment.
Should we align the
a.)JTC 1 Fast Track Process and b.) JTC 1 PAS Process
with the
ISO and IEC Fast Track Process? For example, if the BRM
following
the DIS ballot results in the modification of the document, should
the document be balloted as an FDIS? If so, how do we align the
processes?
For example, please see JTC 1 N 8634, which proposes
the alignment of the
JTC 1 Fast Track and PAS processes.
Response:
There
is already a de facto FDIS ballot in the 30 days reconsideration
period after the BRM.
Should
we harmonize the initiation of all three JTC 1 processes? For
example,
NPs require National Body votes for approval. Please see the third
chapter of JTC 1 N 8625.
Response:
Yes
to harmonization in concept. A clear equivalence of the different
stages in each of the processes is desirable.
NOTE: The Fast Track
Process creates both International Standards and Technical Reports
Type Three.
Response:
PAS should also be allowed to create TR type 3.
NOTE: The PAS Process
in JTC 1 is different than the PAS Process in ISO and IEC, and
alignment of the two processes is not intended.
