From rinehuls@access.digex.net Fri Jul 3 00:58:31 1998 Received: from access2.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04544 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:58:30 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id TAA14739 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2754 - UK Contribution to Plenary on SC22 Plenary Organization - PLENARY AGENDA ITEM Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII _________________ 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 N2754 TITLE United Kingdom Contribution to the August 1998 JTC 1/SC22 Plenary on SC22 Plenary Organization - PLENARY AGENDA ITEM DATE ASSIGNED: 1998-07-02 SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 BACKWARD POINTER: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: National Body Contribution PROJECT NUMBER: N/A STATUS: This document will be on the agenda for discussion at the August 1998 JTC 1/SC22 Plenary ACTION IDENTIFIER: FYI DUE DATE: N/A DISTRIBUTION: Text CROSS REFERENCE: N/A DISTRIBUTION FORM: Def Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Telephone: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net __________________ end of title page; beginning of contribution _______ UK SUBMISSION ON SC22 PLENARY ORGANISATION A number of UK delegates felt that the length of the proceedings of the last SC22 plenary meeting had been too long, considering the amount of business being undertaken, and also that the meeting could be improved in a number of other ways. This document is the result of some discussion within BSI's IST/5 committee: [Note: The following may not take into account all the changes implied by the current JTC1 Draft directives.] 1. FOLLOW JTC1 DIRECTIVES The previous edition of the JTC1 directives (clause 7.6) required that the agenda is distributed four months in advance, with comments sent to the SC22 secretariat no later than two months before the meeting. The 1998 edition requires only four weeks for most contributions, but two weeks for subsequent comments would be a realistic time scale. At the last SC22 plenary the old rules were satisfied by no national body (NB) and virtually no Working Group (WG) convener. Most of their reports were actually brought to the meeting which will still not formally be allowed. Almost all NB reports and WG conveners' reports are purely routine. They contain information for the record, and actions which are uncontroversial such as appointments of project editors. Much time is spent laboriously presenting each one. If they are circulated beforehand, they could then be taken as read with only the highlights and requests for actions presented at the meetings, with the convener answering questions. 2. PREPARE RESOLUTIONS BEFORE MEETING Much time is spent by the drafting committee in preparing resolutions which are then wordsmithed at great length by the subcommittee. Time would be saved if many of these resolutions were drafted before the meeting. Of the 42 resolutions, 17 were pure routine (e.g. withdrawal of projects, agreement for concurrent ballots, and appointments). 10 others could have been drafted because their meaning depends only on the content of some cross-referenced document. 7 others were appreciations and condolences. This leaves only 8 resolutions that had to be prepared at the meeting, and even here, a draft could often have been prepared with holes to be filled in at the meeting itself. 3. DEFINE SUBJECTS FOR AD-HOC DISCUSSIONS BEFORE MEETING A large amount of time is spent on ad hoc meetings. The agenda SC22 N2517, merely stated 10. AD HOC MEETINGS (as required) Such vagueness gives the delegates maximum flexibility, and enables emergency matters to be discussed, but prohibits NBs from considering the matters beforehand, and presenting a NB view. At the last plenary the topics were discussed in parallel, so that it was impossible for all but the most numerous delegations to participate fully in the discussions. It would be much more efficient for each subject to be announced beforehand, and the discussion to be based on a previously circulated position paper supplemented by e-mail questions and other points. This position paper would ideally be circulated with the announcement, probably by email - again preferably at least 2 weeks before the Plenary. Emergency matters should be covered by a limited presentation in plenary limited to (say) ten minutes or so, perhaps only being taken in an Ad-hoc in very exceptional circumstances. Any subsequent decisions could be taken later by correspondence or email if there is no general agreement. 4. INCLUDE PRESENTATIONS BY CONVENERS, GUESTS, LIAISONS Most of the meeting as currently constructed is not relevant to many of the attendees, and they do not participate as fully as desirable. It would be more valuable if the meeting contained presentations by conveners, guests, and representatives of liaison bodies. The objective should be to -- explain what is happening elsewhere, -- describe ideas and techniques that could be used more widely, and -- request help on resolving some of the problems faced. The overall objective should be education rather than bare facts. Liaison is important in spreading information and knowledge between relevant bodies, but the liaisons between SC22 and various other groups are not working. The only liaison report at the last Plenary was from SC2 (character sets), but even here no representative was actually present to answer questions. SC22 needs to make liaison work, or to give up its pretence. Personal invitations should be sent to all liaison representatives so that they know what is expected, and when. This would require time-tabling of sessions for specific days, which would enable some delegates, e.g. Liaison representatives or Project Editors, to be present for only part of the meeting. 5. LENGTH OF MEETING The last Plenary discussed whether future plenaries could be four instead of five days. This was strongly supported by the UK, but a majority of delegates wanted to continue with a fixed five days or a five day meeting which could be shortened two months before the meeting if the chairman believes less time is required. The latter suggestion was agreed to be impracticable. The UK believes that the SC22 plenary meeting would need only two or three days and would also be more productive if SC22 followed the suggestions outlined above. _____________________ end of SC22 N2754 ________________________________