Subject: N 4284 - Report of the 27 September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22 Plenary in Singapore

From: "Sally Seitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:57:11 -0400

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces

Secretariat:  U.S.A.  (ANSI) 

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N4283

TITLE: 

Report of the 27 September 2007 Breakout Session of the JTC 1/SC 22
Plenary in Singapore

DATE ASSIGNED: 

2007-09-27 

SOURCE: 

Breakout Group

BACKWARD POINTER: 

DOCUMENT TYPE: 

Meeting Report

PROJECT NUMBER: 

STATUS: 

This document is circulated to SC 22 members for information. 

ACTION IDENTIFIER: 

FYI 

DUE DATE: 

N/A 

DISTRIBUTION: 

text

CROSS REFERENCE: 

DISTRIBUTION FORM: 

Open

_____________________________________end of cover page, beginning of
report___________________________________

REPORT OF THE AD-HOC ON JTC 1 ISSUES

====================================

The ad-hoc on JTC 1 Issues was tasked to consider papers SC 22
N4236-N4243

inclusively.

Leader:

Mr. Jonathan Hodgson

Membership:

 Mr. Kiyoshi Ishihata, Mr. Shizuo Goto, Mr. Nick Stoughton, Mr. Keld

 Simonsen, Mr. Roger Scowen, Mr. Stephen Michell, Mr. Rod Grealish,

 Mr. John Benito, Mr. Rex Jaeschke

N4236 IITRG

===========

The RG has produced a report on their review of Annex H of the
directives,

including the availability of tools, the relevance of the formats
listed,

and the availability of new format standards (JTC 1 N8762).

SC 22 is concerned that if IIT-RG is disbanded, there be a suitable

mechanism identified for handling input from SCs regarding tools and

other IT related matters.  ITSIG could well be this mechanism.

Proposed resolution: 

Resolution 07-## JTC 1 IIT-RG

JTC 1/SC 22 supports the position stated in JTC 1 N8642 (SC 22 N4236).

JTC 1/SC 22 notes that its suggestion from resolution 06-32 on Open

Document Format has been considered.  ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) has been

partially added to the reviewed annex H, in JTC 1 N8762, although

the edits appear incomplete (for example table column disappears at

page 14). JTC 1/SC 22 also encourages JTC 1 to make ISO/IEC 26300 a

highly recommended rather than possible/plausible format in this table

for "ISO/IEC Standard in preparation" and "Joint ISO/IEC and ITU-T

Standard/Recommendation in Preparation". SC 22 also believes that ODF

(ISO/IEC 26300) should be added to H4.1, before Microsoft Word.

---------------------------------------------------

N4237 Statement on Cooperation

==============================

Several questions:

1. Are the current categories of liaison adequate with regards to

the different needs for cooperation between SCs and consortia, SDOs,

etc.? If not, which needs are not covered and how can they be covered?

      SC 22 response:

      SC 22 believes that the current three categories identified in

      3.3.4.2 of the JTC 1 directives are adequate and sufficient.

      However, SC 22 also notes that it has one case where it is part

      of a cooperative development process with other entities that

      are not officially liaisons; namely the Austin Group, being the

      collective name for the triumviate of ISO/IEC SC 22, The Open

      Group, and The IEEE.

2. Do we need other ways of cooperating on standards development or

information exchange?

      SC 22 response:

      The Austin Group joint development approach should be considered

      as a useful model for other groups to consider.

3. Do we manage our liaisons effectively?

     o Do experts actively participate on the meetings of liaison
organisation?

            SC 22 response:

            Yes

     o Do liaison organisations receive input on the SC's and WG's work
and

        vice versa?

            SC22: Yes

     o Can existing and potential liaison organisations easily find out
current

        relevant information on the work of JTC1 and its SCs and WGs,
etc.

            SC 22 response: Existing: Yes. Potential: No.  Much of

            the work of JTC 1 and its SCs is kept protected, and a

            potential liaison will often find it hard or impossible

            to obtain the relevant information.

     o How can we improve the process to ensure that contributions from
liaison

        organisations are considered and responded to appropriately?

            SC 22 response:

            SC 22 encourages the use of a liaison co-ordinator

            as described in 3.3.4.4 for any organization that has

            mutliple liaisons.

     o How can JTC1 and its SCs and WGs be more proactive in identifying
and

        establishing appropriate liaisons?

            SC 22 response: SC 22 encourages JTC 1 and its SCs to

            be far more open in its business. SC 22 suggests that

            Annex HD of the directives be reviewed in the light of

            being more proactive in freely providing information

            for potential liaison origanizations.

4. What can we learn from other standards organisations?

      SC 22 response:

      We asked our liaisons for information:

      Ecma: Including non-profit origanizations into the process has

            proved extremely useful

      The Linux Foundation: 

            notes that making the document review process as wide

            open as possible, actively encouraging input from as many

            individuals as possible, has led to great improvements in

            the overall quality of documents produced.

      Austin Group: 

            concurrent development of documents by SC 22, IEEE and

            The Open Group has proved to be a useful, efficient, and

            successful alternative to the Fast-track/PAS process. (NB

            the Austin Group is not an official liaison origanization;

            see above).

Resolution to request chair to discuss these points during the breakout

session as appropriate.

-----------------------------------------

N4238 Objectives

===============

1. How is overall Business Planning being performed in its SC's,

in other standard developing organizations (e.g. ISO, IEC, ITU-T,

etc)? What can we learn/leverage from those experiences?

2. How well are the Business Plans of JTC 1 and its SCs synchronized

and coordinated ?  If not, how can the situation be improved?

3. Do the current Business Planning processes support the work of JTC

1 and its SCs? If not, how can the situation be improved?

4. How well does the operation of JTC 1 adhere to its Business Plan?

5. How can JTC 1 better fulfill its role and strategy as "System

Integrator"?

SC 22 response:

See comments on N4243

-----------------------------------------

N4239 Promotion

===============

1. Is JTC 1 informing the global business community about its standards

and is JTC 1 making the standards the businesses want?

2. In the face of competition from alternative venues (international,

regional national, formal and informal bodies), how can the value of

JTC1 best be articulated? And how can that value be further enhanced?

3. What will it take to attract more of the standardization work in ICT

to take place in JTC1?

SC 22 response:

SC 22 believes that there may be a brand recognition problem with

"ISO/IEC JTC 1".  Subcommittees rarely see any benefit from JTC 1
itself,

it is simply bureaucratic overhead.  SC 22 agrees that it appears that

the global business community is not fully aware of the benefits of

developing standards in JTC 1 and encourages JTC 1 to address this

problem by better marketing and branding.

-----------------------------------------

N4240 Tools

===========

1. SC Reports

SC 22 response: We have no input on this item.

2. Managing or coordination of cross-SC work

Are the various alternative approaches sufficient to manage and
co-ordinate

cross-SC work efficiently? If not, how can be improved?

SC 22 response:

We believe that the various alternatives are theoretically adequate;

however we have noted ongoing problems with our internal liaisons, and

have resolved to monitor them closely and terminate or replace inactive

liaison relationships as appropriate.

-----------------------------------------

N4241 Technology Watch

======================

1. How well has SWG for Technology Watch met its original purposes and

how can JTC 1 strengthen its function in the future?

2. Are SCs playing an appropriate role in Technology Watch? If not, what

needs to be changed?  How can Technology Watch be made more attractive

for SC representatives?

3. Are workshops an effective mechanism for meeting the objectives of

Technology Watch?  Should they be complemented by other mechanisms? What

mechanisms are they?

SC 22 response:

SC 22 has played an active role in an equivalent position to the SWG on 

Technology Watch, even though we did not call it that, and credits its 

chair with directing us in this way. LSB, OWG-V and Standards Education

are three examples of work items arising from this activity.

SC 22 has always undertaken these watching activities during ad-hoc

breakout sessions from plenary meetings, but should consider having this

as a standing activity. Considering appointing a "Technology Watch"

officer. However, this is really the role of all NBs, with the chair

acting as a coordinator. Encourage each NB to include a "Tech Watch"

paragraph in their report.

Proposed Resolution:

JTC 1/SC 22 encourages national bodies and external liaison
organizations

to include a "Technology Watch" item in their written reports, and
requests

JTC 1 to make available copies of Technology Watch reports and
presentations

for dissemination to SCs.

-----------------------------------------

N4243 LTBP

==========

1. Which objectives of the LTBP and activities of the LTBP
Implementation

Plan have been successful, which have failed? What are the reasons for

success and failure? What is needed to improve the current situation?

2. Are there any objectives that are implied but not stated that need

to be addressed?

3. Does JTC 1 have the right tools to perform the objectives described

in the LTBP? If not, how can the current situation be improved?

4. How can we take advantage of the "Strategies" clause in JTC 1 and

SC's Business Plans (especially the "risks" and "opportunities"

sections) to identify issues to be addressed in the overall management

of LTBP?

SC 22 response:

Almost every WG reports concerns with particpation as a significant
risk.

SC 22 believes that the current planning methodology is probably working

as well as it could.

The ad-hoc considered the following questions:

Should JTC 1 establish a requirements specification group to guide WGs?

Should JTC 1 establish a conformance testing subgroup?

SC 22 believes that the current requirments analysis methods employed by

WGs appears to be adequate. "Bottom up" requirements analysis is
generally

more effective than "top down". Consider OSI (a top-down approach)

which led to not only a failed set of standards, but ridiculed ones.

Resolution:

SC 22 encourages JTC 1 to consider development paradigms for new

standards that include joint development with other organizations,

such as the methods currently successfully used within SC 22 

with INCITS, Ecma, The Austin Group or Linux Foundation.

Sally Seitz

Program Manager

American National Standards Institute

25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10036

Tel: 212 642 4918

Fax: 212 840 2298