SC22/WG20 N697 

SC22/WG20 convenor’s remarks to the concerns in SC22 N2993



I appreciate the contribution of the National Body of Japan in N2993.  Japan experts have been involved in the working group from its very beginning and have been successful editors for two completed projects. 


WG20’s goals are consensus standards without unnecessarily losing time. 

Therefore WG20 submits potentially mature drafts for FCD ballots rather than CD ballots.  This method, while saving the time for a “final” FCD ballot if successful, does not adversely effect the processing of ballot results, generation of a disposition of comments and of a new draft between scheduled meetings, if the ballot fails.  The DoCs can be discussed and text for the new draft can be developed in the meetings with the representatives of National Bodies.


The process contains the following steps:

·         Development of a draft disposition of comments by the editor before the meeting

·         Discussion of the proposed disposition of comments during the meeting

·         Technical and editorial changes are agreed upon, mostly by consensus

·         Text is changed and new text is developed; sometimes the editor or a contributor may be authorized to create text after the meeting by an agreed target date.

·         When all comments are dealt with, the scheduled progress is approved by resolution.

·         The editor develops the text for the disposition of comments and the text for the new draft, based on the discussions in the meeting and on agreed upon input from contributors.

·         The new texts are placed on the web site (as agreed in the resolution) for final check by NBs for an agreed upon time (3 – 4 weeks). 

·         NBs comment to the WG20 discussion list about proposed changes to the draft texts.  These contributions can be seen, commented, and discussed by all members of WG20.

·         Proposed improvement: The new text introduced as the result of the disposition of technical comments shall be provided in the meeting as far as possible. In case that the text can not be provided within the meeting, the new text shall be provided by the joint work between the project editor and the submitter of the comment.

·         Proposed improvement: A rationale shall be given for each rejected technical comment.  The submitter of the comment shall be explicitly informed.

·         Proposed improvement:  All members present at the meeting will be more explicitly invited to comment, if they don’t agree with the submitted text.

·         By the agreed upon date:  The editor submits the final text for the DoC and the new draft to the convenor who submits them to the SC22 secretariat for the next ballot.

·         Proposed improvement:  The new document will be posted in 2 versions – one for use by the National Bodies with change marks for deleted and added text, and one version for the general public without the change indicators.  This allows the experts to see how their proposed changes have been implemented by the editor.

·         Proposed improvement: The disposition of comments shall have the indication which part of document will be modified as the result of the disposition, and the names of NBs who disagreed with the disposition of comment with its rationale,

·         Each national body which provides a negative comment shall propose specific text changes. Any comment not accompanied by specific text changes will not necessarily be accommodated adequately.


I believe that the improved process allows ample possibilities for input and control, that comments and contributions are properly applied to the draft documents (Standards and Technical Reports). 


Arnold F. Winkler