Consequently, Ecma is not constrained in posting its interim responses on a publicly available page as long as they are not tied to specific NB comments. In other words, Ecma would have to do some work to separate the proposed responses from the specific NB comments, but then Ecma may make its work publicly visible. If there is so much interest outside the NB circuit, then Ecma will surely do something here.

Once again, concerning the Fast-Track, and also other processes, try to look through the glasses of ISO/IEC. As I blogged on November 27 in more detail: the whole FT process is an ISO/IEC process, NOT an Ecma process. See http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-observations-as-result-of-ecmas.html

Additional information that explains what is happening is that the current phase of the process is NOT on ISO/IEC level. It is also NOT on ISO/IEC JTC 1 level, but it is controlled by one of the Sub-Committees of JTC 1, i.e., SC34 on Document Description and Processing Languages. SC34 decides on the distribution of the unsolicited proposals from Ecma, following the spirit of the JTC 1 Directives. SC34 organizes the BRM, etc. The JTC 1 JTC 1 Directives tell you more about this in clause 13. And Ecma has also a Liaison with SC34.

Indeed, seen from Ecma there is nothing that forbids Ecma to distribute its proposals. But it should also be clear, in the light of the longstanding relationship, that it is not a MUST for Ecma to do this. Good habits and rules have a value, like in any great game, such as football. And also there the rules and habits don’t change overnight because somebody has another, maybe even brilliant idea.
By the way, some people wonder why Ecma is presenting its proposals in the way it is done. Some people call that ‘inconvenient’, or are using English words that maybe do not well translate in my mother tongue. Well, that is simple because there is an ISO/IEC template prescribing a certain lay-out. But everybody is free to do a little bit of sorting to kick duplicates out, and to sort them on whatever sub-key. But the BRM will use the template that is familiar to the National Bodies. And it is the responsibility of the NBs to propose dispositions themselves – at the end of the ballot preferably – and to ponder on the proposed dispositions that will come – in batches – from Ecma. There are not only proposals coming from Ecma, proposals can also come from NBs. And correspondence about proposals between Ecma/Editor of DIS 29500 and NBs is also a possibility. Others, not active in NBs, may ponder as well, of course, but that remains voluntary.

“What is difficult to understand is why ISO/IEC would make this request.”

Yes – and I would also wish, that ISO/IEC would explain it a bit further. One explanation could be, that even though the very public discussion of DIS29500 helped process the comprehensive text, a lot of the critique was based merely on feelings and hearsay. The discussions taking place now are of a different nature and it could be that ISO/IEC is trying to keep the treatment of the dispositions of comments on a more fact-based approach than the discusions in Summer 2007.

“UK maintained a publicly readable wiki to prepare their comments, and nobody claimed that this was against the ISO/IEC rules.”

Well – the comments from UK was in fact their comments and the Danish NB also made theirs public so I don’t see the what you are trying to say. Quite a few NBs made their comments public.

“So obviously such an openness *IS WITHIN* the ISO/IEC rules.”

If you say so – and so does Rob. This is why I keep asking Rob, why he doesn’t put actions behind his words and make the comments public on http://www.ibm.com . My quess is that he doesn’t, because IBM benefits more from the dispositions being secret – so the frenzy can continue) than if they were made public.

… but this is naturally just speculation on my part

/Jesper

I wonder if all people that have access to the Ecma suggested edits on the submitted comments will actually decide to use this channel or if they will find a more public place to give their ‘feedback’ on the proposed edits.

“They have been asked by ISO/IEC not to – is it so difficult to understand?”
What is difficult to understand is why ISO/IEC would make this request. It does not seems to be part of their written rules. Do you know who from ISO made the request, and the reason given ?

“Once the FT process is running [...] Everything is judged and done by the ISO/IEC rules.”
UK maintained a publicly readable wiki to prepare their comments, and nobody claimed that this was against the ISO/IEC rules. So obviously such an openness *IS WITHIN* the ISO/IEC rules.

“If you want to throw dirt of someone, fine with me … but do it at ISO/IEC where it belongs.”
First, I don’t want to throw dirt to anybody. Second, my two posts were about the text of the ISO/IEC rules, so the discussion is already exactly were it belongs. Finally, you are right that any dirt thrown at ISO is landing on all the ISO standards. It is surely not what I want. (Rather, I find it a pity that some people are so happy to undermine the whole ISO process, but this is another discussion).

“Clearly, this says that ECMA is *FREE TO CIRCULATE* their comments in an informal way. Only *FORMAL* distribution is prohibited.”

Yes – but they have been asked by ISO/IEC not to – is it so difficult to understand?

“Clearly, ISO encourages the *WIDEST POSSIBLE* dissemination of the working documents.”

Yes – within the ISO-system consisting of its members – the national bodies.

“My understanding is exactly opposite to your conclusions !”

Well – I am not surprised that you interpret it in another way than I … are you ?

Jan put it very clearly:

“First remark is that everything related to DIS 29500 is happening in ISO/IEC and its National Bodies at the moment, and totally under their control. Ecma has formally no say in the ISO/IEC process, and has even not the status of an NB.
Submission of a Fast Track proposal to ISO/IEC JTC 1 means literally that you give the document in their hands. Once the FT process is running, you/Ecma cannot stop it anymore, or change its flow. Everything is judged and done by the ISO/IEC rules.”

why don’t you listen to this?

We all would like the comments to be broadly available (allthough, based on the hysteric out-cry towards ECMA I am sensing a beginning personal difference of opinion), but this is not an ECMA decision – it is an ISO/IEC-decision. If you want to throw dirt of someone, fine with me … but do it at ISO/IEC where it belongs.

Could it be that the reason for not wanting to throw dirt at ISO/IEC is that some of it might land on ODF?

And finally: Rob, why doesn’t IBM make the draft disposition of comments available to everyone off the IBM website? Since you say that there are no rules – what is stopping you?

The issue of bringing them back in the ISO loop is secundary here, although it calls for some interesting remarks . What I want to know at first is why this process is not public, as this process takes place not inside the ISO, not by the ISO, but inside the Ecma (TC 45) and by Ecma.

The while comments thread and the answer from Mr Van den Beld simply do not answer that question.

Let’s have a closer look at the last extract you quoted :

“The ISO standardisation process encourages the widest possible dissemination of

the working documents … *FREE OF CHARGE* within the ISO system”
“ISO/TC/SC working documents are not intended for *FREE* distribution outside

the ISO system as defined above. It may be noted that the POCOSA agreement

allows the member bodies to *SELL* TC/SC working documents to those outside the

system.”

My understanding is that the purpose of this text is not about *availability* of

the documents, but about the *associated costs*.

Dissemination of the docs must be free of charge to people inside the system.

It is allowed to ask money to people outside the system. In both case, the

documents remain available to anybody, but some people *could* have to pay for

accessing the documents. To ask for some money surely made sense when postal

mail was used to distribute paper documents.

@Jan

Thanks to let us know what are your views on this.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t see where you find an obligation of secrecy in the extracts of JTC1 rules you quoted above :

- “…Liaison organisations are free to circulate their comments to other NBs provided they do not use the formal SC or JTC 1 documentation distribution system.”
“Formal distribution is prohibited…”

Clearly, this says that ECMA is *FREE TO CIRCULATE* their comments in an informal way. Only *FORMAL* distribution is prohibited.

- “The ISO standardisation process encourages the widest possible dissemination of the working documents needed for preparing standards free of charge within the ISO system to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to contribute to the development of a standard.”

Clearly, ISO encourages the *WIDEST POSSIBLE* dissemination of the working documents.

My understanding is exactly opposite to your conclusions !

> I hope this helps.

It does ,

Thanks

/Jesper