(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4431) Processing the TR ballot

[John Reid]

WG5,

The SC22 secretary has just asked how the TR is going and reminded me that the 
TR "is slated for 30 December 2011 cancellation". Our present plan (after the 
recent slippage)

     PDTR forwarded to SC22           2011-03
     PDTR ballot initiated            2011-03
     PDTR ballot comments available   2011-05
     DTR constructed                  2011-06
     DTR ballot initiated             2011-07
     DTR ballot results available     2011-10
     TR published                     2011-11

fits within this schedule. The WG5 informal vote is clearly opposed to sending 
N1845 forward as the PDTR today, so we have missed the March target. However, I 
said in my ballot

"2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
Comment: These changes include suggestions for resolving the UTIs for
which Van Synder's vote has not already suggested changes. I would
much prefer WG5 to submit a revised document that resolves all the UTIs
and makes other changes that the Interop group accepts."

and Bill says in his ballot

"I've been accumulating the various (and many) edits proposed to the TR as part 
of this informal Ballot.  They seem to fall into these categories:
1) Typos (spelling, punctuation, etc.)
2) Non-controversial corrections to wrong statements or C program example
    syntax.
3) Wording changes that improve clarity, but do not make technical changes.
4) Reformatting the presentation of the function descriptions in 5.2.5.
5) Minor technical changes that address oversights in the current draft.
6) Technical changes on which there is not consensus.
7) Proposals for edits that are based on some misunderstanding and are unlikely
    to be accepted.
My preference would be to create an updated draft based on the edits for 
categories 1-5, have a subgroup review the result as a PDTR candidate, and leave 
the comparatively small number of issues in category 6 for responses to the PDTR 
ballot and resolution at the June meeting."

and says he thinks this can be done by April 8th, which would mean that the 
result would be available well before the WG5 meeting in Germany. I want us to 
do this. It will get countries to consider their positions before the meeting 
and the worst case scenario is that we have to create a new PDTR at the WG5 
meeting. That would put the schedule back by 4 months (one J3 meeting), but the 
second PDTR would have a better chance of acceptance and ISO does allow a 
6-month period of grace. The alternative is simply to say that we will create 
the PDTR at the WG5 meeting, but if we fail to do this or its vote fails, we 
will probably see this project cancelled (we might just possibly get away with 
an 8-month delay, but that would be highly dangerous).

If you strongly object to this plan, please let me know at once.

John.