From paulh@cwi.nl Thu Apr 8 19:29:50 1993 Received: from charon.cwi.nl by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA04553 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:29:34 +0200 Received: from visarend.cwi.nl by charon.cwi.nl with SMTP id AA26693 (5.65b/3.8/CWI-Amsterdam); Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:29:52 +0200 Received: by visarend.cwi.nl with SMTP id AA00615 (920330.SGI/3.8/CWI-Amsterdam); Thu, 8 Apr 93 17:29:50 +0200 Message-Id: <9304081529.AA00615=paulh@visarend.cwi.nl> To: BJSHEP@ausvm6.vnet.ibm.com Cc: sc24@dkuug.dk, ivan@cwi.nl, D0270@applelink.apple.com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Apr 1993 11:53:28 MDT." <199304071655.AA01850@dkuug.dk> Subject: PREMO Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1993 17:29:50 +0200 From: Paul ten Hagen X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Dear Barry Thank you for your email concerning the PREMO ballot and the JTC1 reaction. I would like you to clarify several issues for all of us interested in PREMO, in order that we can take appropriate and effective actions. My interpretation is that the vote is overwhelmingly positive for the work item to be taken on by SC24. Having said that it is also clear that we will have to put a major effort inplace between now and the upcoming sc24 meeting to satisfactorily deal with the national member bodies comments. I believe that the other SCs comments deserve attention too but they formally have a different status. Please clarify this. The next question is: If we deal with the comments satisfactorily for instance such that we obtain unanimous backing of the SC24 members at Steamboat Springs, will this be sufficient for the JTC1 secretariat to let us go ahead, or will there be another ballot necessary? I believe that getting the full approval of SC18 and SC29 will need more time apparently for them it is in part not a question of whether we behave well or not but that they still principally disagree with us doing our work. I hope that now that JTC1 has ruled otherwise, i.e. confirming our role (this is at least how I intepret this) we will be able to continue to liaise with them in order to carefully respect their area of work, as JTC1 sees it. The nature of our comments to them should make it clear that we will clarify PREMOs position relative to their work. Some of the comments however want us to empty our scope of work, this we cannot satisfy and we can noly hope that they will be good sports.I would also appreciate your interpretation of the ISO working rules in this matter. As convener of WG6 i am now announcing the meeting agenda for Steam Boat springs according to the original schedule, but will stress the urgency of preparing for and dealing with the ballot replies. This is going to reduce the time and resources avilable for further PREMO technical work, but I do not intend to reduce the agenda for the PREMO meeting itself. Please confirm your expectations from WG6 to assist SC24 in this matter, and also that continuing the technical work with full force is justified right now. I propose also that the national members who voted no with coments can see a first draft of our answer in order to be certain that it will be satisfactorily. If you agree with this schedule we will approach our WG6 members individually with these tasks. Best regards Paul ten Hagen PS Thanks Steve for the rballot results in the Email, they are a great help