Subject: SC 22 N 3177 - Discussion of Proposals of JTC1 Special Group on S trategic Planning

From: Lisa Rajchel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:57:18 -0400

_____________________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:  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

_____________________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.