From follett@access.digex.net Thu Sep 5 23:11:31 1996 Received: from ratatosk.DK.net (root@ratatosk.DK.net [193.88.44.22]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17976 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:11:30 +0200 Received: from access2.digex.net (ql9k3zIK9fH02@access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by ratatosk.DK.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23775 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:11:24 +0200 Received: from localhost (follett@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01267 ; for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:10:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:10:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Follett X-Sender: follett@access2.digex.net To: SC22 Documents Subject: Program of Work Review at SC22 Plenary (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:04:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Follett To: SC22 Subject: Program of Work Review at SC22 Plenary Hello, friends. I would like to call your particular attention to an agenda item that may very well be the most important one we discuss in London. I don't normally like to single out any one item since I know that all of our work is important. However, in this case, if we do not pay proper attention to this item, it could have unintended and unpleasant consequences! I am referring to agenda item 11.2 on National Body reviews of SC22 Program Management. Direction is given in document SC22 N2228. JTC1 has asked EACH SC22 MEMBER BODY to review our program of work and indicate, FOR EACH PROJECT, whether: a) the NB is actively participating and providing resources in the development of the project, or b) the NB feels the project should be pursued in the SC but is unable to provide standards development resources, or c) the NB has no interest in having the SC develop the project. JTC1 has further asked SC22 to complete this analysis during our plenary meeting. We therefore need input from EVERY NB that is a P-member of SC22. While I do not know precisely what JTC1 will do with these analyses, it is clear that JTC1 is going through a re-engineering effort and, among other things, is determined to make sure that the JTC1 work program is relevant in today's marketplace. I anticipate that JTC1 is likely to take action to cancel projects with insufficient interest and with insufficient participation (less than 5 NBs). As chairman, I support the JTC1 goal that our work be relevant. If any of our work items deserve cancellation, then we should certainly recommend that. However, it would be extremely unfortunate if some projects show insufficient interest or participation simply because we have not heard from all NBS due to the rather short time frame for this JTC1 request. I therefore make the following request: 1) SC22 Member Bodies: Please be sure to make the requested determination for every SC22 project and submit it to the SC22 Secretariat in advance of the plenary, if possible. This is especially important for NBs who will not be represented at the plenary. 2) SC22 Working Group Conveners: If you have participants from NBs that may not be represented at the SC22 plenary, contact those participants and have them make sure that their NB is submitting a project review for consideration at our plenary in response to SC22 N2228. Thank you. Regards, Bob