From owner-sc35wg2+sc35wg2-domo2=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Jan 28 18:50:22 2014
Return-Path: <owner-sc35wg2+sc35wg2-domo2=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc35wg2-domo2
Delivered-To: sc35wg2-domo2@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 2124635851E; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:22 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc35wg2@open-std.org
Received: from rap.rap.dk (0x5551165b.adsl.cybercity.dk [85.81.22.91])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3DE358512
	for <sc35wg2@open-std.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by rap.rap.dk (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id AC0162AC1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:50:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D583567ED;
	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:57:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so666127qcy.39
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type;
        bh=BoK4km1V1jAB0+VcAoY+r9asQEexm9qrLvcCGp5EUhA=;
        b=txn33NMtxR62bt6+5f19Hf/GfyhhpIi4ve7RAqrXerAETWzTDKFnyuJ9wKwvAeCd98
         69mDCOtCvqinrPK8VOnnnfq7Vs0PNbq+oxcEqB1N6dZUcBJMKXQCkctfB7u7EiRplz1c
         ol82yQt9Of3JPxyU7nSXe9C5mvSqvYx8RHR3VP6CQu5KZ2HlrajebGBdqlTiG57p5Ic7
         dZyCfZyLh2UEAIKaXuo5WwjZQNUVfjtdxFfnXxLD3zF0/U+hcPiSRBH1oLmH+6WSXbBY
         m6pX6ld211XuOYhGNu6DGH1Z716IA8S5kieKthG+XkNsnedKfmYQnQln8mhe9ArKoXj6
         drDw==
X-Received: by 10.224.74.74 with SMTP id t10mr3088928qaj.82.1390921060119;
        Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Ovonel.gmail.com (modemcable096.160-200-24.mc.videotron.ca. [24.200.160.96])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v92sm11877122qge.6.2014.01.28.06.57.38
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20140128092950.2cca0ce0@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:57:34 -0500
To: Khalid CHOUKRI <choukri@elda.org>,yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp,
 jeeink@gmail.com,monique.mai@orange.com,keld@keldix.com,
 carter@cs.usask.ca,thibault.grouas@culture.gouv.fr
From: ALB <alabon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (SC35WG1.507) (SC35WG2.17) JTC1/SC35 meeting - Barcelona,
  week of 10 February 2014
Cc: sc35wg1@open-std.org,philippe.magnabosco@afnor.org,
 mouradi amelle <amelle.mouradi@afnor.org>,sc35wg2@open-std.org,
 sc35wg4@open-std.org,sc35wg6@open-std.org,sc35wg8@open-std.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_974288254==.ALT"
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140128-0, 2014-01-28), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Sender: owner-sc35wg2@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

--=====================_974288254==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 2014-01-28 à 08:32, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit :
>Well I am surprised to see that (and hope this is only WG1!) , let 
>us discuss it again and see how to move forward.

[Alain]  So far I have seen unanimity of those who expressed their 
views from other WGs as well (Seki San, Jim, Monique, Karl, Keld, 
etc.). Nobody else said the view I expressed on GOM was not the best 
and most efficient one, and the one understood in Saskatoon too at 
our infornal meeting. That is why I say it is certainly only a 
misunderstanding between those who knew GOMs and you, Khalid (no 
offence intended, of course, I'm just in search of the best). Btw GOM 
is a concept invented by AFNOR at the time (for meetings when the 
secretary could not be present). It pleased everybody. It seems it 
still pleases.

    Some other remarks:

1) not all P-members are represented at Plenaries with a capital P, 
unfortunately. There is no reason to be more severe concerning this 
at resolution plenaries with a small p. In general, except for one or 
2 exceptions, member bodies really participating in making projects 
attend all meetings (that said without diminishing the importance of 
others who still show their solidarity in the voting process of 
documents to be published, which is very important and the name of 
the game in international standards).

2) The notion of quorum is important (both at Plenaries and 
"plenaries" [GOMs]). Resolutions taken by GOMs should be as executory 
as those taken at Plenaries because there is a quorum (without letter 
ballot to approve those resolutions again). Whether these resolutions 
are approved in a GOM or in a single WG should not matter. In other 
SCs, even when there is an interim meeting (no Plenary), resolutions 
of WGs are executory immediately ans are not approved twice in a 
further letter ballot (case in point : JTC1/SC2, in which I am active 
both as convernor and editor).

3) GOMs just assures SC35 coherence, as there are multiple projects 
that inter-relates WGs (which may be not the case in other SCs). It 
is essential to have constant coherence, all year round. This GOM 
process does not violate any ISO or IEC rule to my nowledge (on the 
contrary, it improves efficience), it is an internal process (checked 
by AFNOR at the time). It also ensures there is no dispersion, and 
should be an asset more to ensure that nothing is forgotten, Dividing 
SC35 further would not be a good idea, it would be detrimental to 
coherence, I'm convinced about this.

Alain 

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

--=====================_974288254==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Le 2014-01-28 à 08:32, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit :<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Well I am surprised to see that
(and hope this is only WG1!) , let us discuss it again and see how to
move forward.</blockquote><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">[Alain]&nbsp; So far I have seen
unanimity of those who expressed their views from other WGs as well (Seki
San, Jim, Monique, Karl, Keld, etc.). Nobody else said the view I
expressed on GOM was not the best and most efficient one, and the one
understood in Saskatoon too at our infornal meeting. That is why I say it
is certainly only a misunderstanding between those who knew GOMs and you,
Khalid (no offence intended, of course, I'm just in search of the best).
Btw GOM is a concept invented by AFNOR at the time (for meetings when the
secretary could not be present). It pleased everybody. It seems it still
pleases.<br><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; Some other remarks: <br><br>
1) not all P-members are represented at Plenaries with a capital P,
<u>unfortunately</u>. There is no reason to be more severe concerning
this at resolution plenaries with a small p. In general, except for one
or 2 exceptions, member bodies really participating in making projects
attend all meetings (that said without diminishing the importance of
others who still show their solidarity in the voting process of documents
to be published, which is very important and the name of the game in
international standards).<br><br>
2) The notion of quorum is important (both at Plenaries and
&quot;plenaries&quot; [GOMs]). Resolutions taken by GOMs should be as
executory as those taken at Plenaries because there is a quorum (without
letter ballot to approve those resolutions again). Whether these
resolutions are approved in a GOM or in a single WG should not matter.
<u>In other SCs, even when there is an interim meeting (no Plenary),
resolutions of WGs are <b>executory immediately</b> ans are not approved
twice in a further letter ballot (case in point : JTC1/SC2, in which I am
active both as convernor and editor).<br><br>
</u>3) GOMs just assures SC35 coherence, as there are multiple projects
that inter-relates WGs (which may be not the case in other SCs). It is
essential to have constant coherence, all year round. This GOM process
does not violate any ISO or IEC rule to my nowledge (on the contrary, it
improves efficience), it is an internal process (checked by AFNOR at the
time). It also ensures there is no dispersion, and should be an asset
more to ensure that nothing is forgotten, Dividing SC35 further would not
be a good idea, it would be detrimental to coherence, I'm convinced about
this.<br><br>
Alain</font>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
	<tr>
		<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
			<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
				<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
			</a>
		</td>
		<td>
			<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
				Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection <a href="http://www.avast.com/">Antivirus avast!</a> est active.
			</p>
		</td>
	</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>

--=====================_974288254==.ALT--