Today's announcement from Ecma that written responses have been provided for all 3,522 national body comments in the DIS 29500 standards process is a major milestone for all involved. Brian Jones has a few details on his blog as well.
Looking at the magnitude of what has been accomplished, I can't help thinking of the comparison between these two tasks:
Which sounds more difficult? I think most people would say the second task sounds much more difficult, and yet Ecma TC45, which has pulled off both of these tasks, did the first one in about a year, and the second one in just four months. To say that they really stepped up their game is an understatement. They've had long hours of phone calls, meetings, and other activities, and have managed to create thousands of pages of high-quality written responses, with some of the individual responses totalling dozens of pages.
As an INCITS V1 member in the US, I have access to the responses, and looking around at them this afternoon I'm amazed at how much has been accomplished. I can't talk about specific details currently due to ISO regulations, but at a high level I'd divide the proposed dispositions into a few buckets:
The resulting specification, after all of these proposed changes are made, will be the most thoroughly reviewed document format standard ever. And the level of detail, clarity and flexibility in the spec will be greatly improved by the process that has taken place. This is standards development in action, and the system is working, for the benefit of all.
Sure, there will be people who disagree with some of the changes, and those debates will take place from now through the BRM (Ballot Resolution Meeting) in late February. Many of those disagreements will be resolved, and some of them probably won't. Some commenters want things that most people don't want, and like any consensus-based process, the opinion of the majority will drive the outcome of those issues. When we're talking about a typo, technical error, or omission, there's not a lot to debate, but sometimes there isn't a solution that can satisfy every single party involved.
For example, I've noticed a few cases in the comments where two different comments from two different countries are mutually exclusive. As one specific example, I noticed a situation where one country says "please explain X in more detail," and another says "X has no place in a standard of this type." Resolving that situation to the satisfaction of all parties will require a delicate combination of technical expertise, communication skills, and respect for all points of view. But based on everything I've seen to date, I think Rex Jaeschke (the project editor) and Alex Brown (the BRM convenor) are up to the task.
Congratulations to Rex and the members of TC45 on this huge accomplishment over the last few months!
The ECMA PR says:
"the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Project Editor, with the help of Ecma TC45, is publishing the Project Editor’s Report of Proposed Dispositions. "
Where is it published?
Trali, they're referring to "publishing" the comments and proposed dispositions to an Ecma site that is only available to the members of the national bodies. JTC 1 has rules governing distribution of the national body comments, and Ecma is following those rules.
"Write responses to thousands of comments, concerns, questions and complaints about the same standard from hundreds of people worldwide, including competing vendors, ideological opponents, and people ranging from deep experts in the subject to, well, those with a little less understanding of the details."
It is not the time for insults to the correctors from the Committees that took the time to read your premature spec.
I didn't mean that as an insult, Gerd, but rather as a simple statement of fact regarding a few of the comments. I respect the process and the participants, but I don't believe that every single one of the 3522 comments are well-informed attempts to improve the quality of the spec, and in a few cases it's not clear that the comment is even relevant to the spec at all. I've heard the same opinion expressed by commenters from several countries, but of course you're entitled to a different opinion if that's how you feel.
Una noticia muy interesante es que ECMA respondió a todos los comentarios que se hicieron en todo el
The comments are here:
Sorry, Thali, but I felt compelled to replace the link about with because the JTC 1 Directives (Annex H) say that the “disposition of Comments” documents are supposed to be “access limited to participants in the ISO system”, which means the participating National Bodies. I'm not comfortable publishing pointers which are not consistent with this direction. - Doug
>Sorry, Thali, but I felt compelled to replace the
>link about with because the JTC 1 Directives (Annex H)
>say that the “disposition of Comments” documents are
> supposed to be “access limited to participants in the
mmm... ECMA "deliberations" closed , dispositions of comments closed , BRM closed
i believe that a lot of standardization process should change , if you want to keep credibility of people ( end users, you know this people? )
Carlos, are you saying that it would increase my credibility with end users if I break the JTC 1 rules? Call me a cynic, but I have my doubts about that.
"Carlos, are you saying that it would increase my credibility with end users if I break the JTC 1 rules?"
Humm, the notorious nuremberg defence.... "I'm just following orders"
I don't know about 'your' credibility', but ISO's credibility would certainly be improved by more transparency - and based on the abuse that ISO's process took this past year,, it can certainly use any spec of credibility it can.. The notion of elaborating 'open standard' in secrecy is quite ludicrous.
Norbert, are you familiar with Godwin's law?
Have you publicly pushed on Rob Weir, who is also a V1 member, to demand that he do what you're asking me to do, violate JTC 1 guidelines? Didn't think so.
I had a chance last week to talk to Brian Jones about the proposed dispositions to the DIS 29500 comments.
I had a chance last week to talk to Brian Jones about the proposed dispositions to the DIS 29500 comments