Subject: SC22 N2754 - UK Contribution to Plenary on SC22 Plenary Organization - PLENARY AGENDA ITEM

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

_________________ 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:  [email-masked]

__________________ 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 ________________________________