From lrajchel@ANSI.org Thu Sep 21 14:58:21 2000 Received: from email1.ansi.org (mail.ansi.org [165.254.114.6]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA28168; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:58:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lrajchel@ANSI.org) Received: by email1.ansi.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:57:27 -0400 Message-ID: <2F81C8110D55D411882A0020356797B2151703@email1.ansi.org> From: Lisa Rajchel To: "'sc22info@dkuug.dk'" Cc: "'Simonsen, Keld'" Subject: SC 22 N 3177 - Discussion of Proposals of JTC1 Special Group on S trategic Planning Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:57:18 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) _____________________beginning of title page___________ ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N3177 TITLE: Discussion of Proposals of JTC1 Special Group on Strategic Planning DATE ASSIGNED: 2000-09-15 SOURCE: SC 22 Plenary Meeting, 12-15 September, 2000 in Nara, Japan BACKWARD POINTER: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: Other (defined) PROJECT NUMBER: STATUS: This document will be forwarded to JTC 1 for consideration at its meeting in Tromso, Norway in November 2000. ACTION IDENTIFIER: FYI to SC22 Member Bodies; consideration by JTC 1 DUE DATE: N/A DISTRIBUTION: text CROSS REFERENCE: DISTRIBUTION FORM: Def Lisa Rajchel ANSI 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 642-4932 Fax: (212) 840-2298 Email: lrajchel@ansi.org _____________________end of title page______________ Discussion of Proposals of JTC1 Special Group on Strategic Planning Characteristics of SC22 SC22 has responsibility for programming languages, systems software interfaces and programming environments. Each of its Working Groups operates relatively independently. They generally meet independently of each other and of SC22 itself. However, because the subject matters of the various Working Groups have important similarities, regular interaction through SC22 and through internal SC22 liaison is an essential resource to the conveners. Some of the WGs predate the formation of SC22 and JTC1. It should also be noted that components of SC22 belong to two different Technical Directions. SC22 understands that there will always be a need for cross-SC (or cross-Technical-Group) liaison regardless of how any reorganization is implemented. The customers for the work of SC22 are user programmers as well as product implementers. There are a wide variety of customers including individuals, corporations of all sizes, academia and government. The communities served by our standards also vary in size from small niches to the very large. The standards written by SC22 are generally large-perhaps an order of magnitude larger than a typical Information Technology standard. It is not unusual for portions of these standards to be written in artificial languages rather than natural language. Many of the standards include computer code fragments which must satisfy the correctness criteria common in programming languages. The standards written by SC22 tend to have a very long life but are revised relatively frequently. SC22 employs a relatively rigorous defect reporting and resolution process. Defect reports are relatively common because of the size, complexity and formal correctness requirements of the standards. It should also be noted that the procedures of SC22 permit Working Groups to "subcontract" technical drafting to National Bodies. Possibilities for Restructuring There was general consensus that SC22 should be retained as a Technical Group in the proposed new organization. It was believed that the administrative and management services provided by SC22 are valued by the Working Groups. Most participants in WGs attend for the purpose of technical interaction. Performing administrative work would not be highly valued within the WGs and would be a disincentive to participation. SC22 realizes that the proposed reorganization might provide the freedom for procedural innovation within the Technical Groups. SC22 agrees that this might be advantageous in the future. However, at the current time, SC22 has no projects or Working Groups that are candidates for a different organization. Furthermore, it was stated that changing the organization of existing projects would have the undesirable effect of disorienting the existing work. We anticipate, though, that some future projects might be able to take advantage of innovative organization. In short, SC22 welcomes the freedom to utilize innovative organizations in the future, but does not desire reorganization of existing projects. Possibilities for Participation Reports from the conveners of existing Working Groups indicated that changed participation rules for currently ongoing projects would be undesirable because of the possibility of disrupting existing consensus. There was also concern expressed that alternative forms of participation (particularly any trial period where participation might occur WITHOUT a fee) would have the effect of draining needed technical resources from National Bodies, hence complicating responsible balloting by NBs at the Management level. SC22 concluded that any decision regarding innovative participation should be made on a project by project basis. New projects and/or new Working Groups would be likely possibilities. SC22 believes that any monies collected through broader participation should be used to subsidize the Secretariat of the Technical Group within which the participation occurs. SC22 concluded that during any trial period, various SCs should be empowered to develop their own procedures for broadened participation. This would provide a variety of experience for JTC1 to consider when formulating a permanent policy. A Question regarding the Proposed Reorganization During the discussion, a question arose regarding the handling of DIS ballots in fast-track and PAS submissions. Technical comments are permitted in DIS ballots. As we understand the proposed reorganization, DIS ballots would be conducted at the Management level which would lack the resources to dispose of technical comments. This suggests that all DIS ballots for fast-track and PAS submissions should be performed in a Technical Group or in consultation with one.