(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5732) Revision of the Standard

David Muxworthy d.muxworthy
Mon Jun 20 08:30:37 EDT 2016

On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:39, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> "In JTC 1, NP ballot is not required for the revision or amendment of an 
> existing standard or Technical Specification, provided that the 
> committee passes a resolution containing the following elements:
> 1)	target dates;
> 2)	confirmation of scope (including whether it will be expanded, in 
> which case the process for new proposals shall apply); and
> 3)	project editor(s) if already assigned."
> In turn this means that I just have to ask SC22 to pass the relevant 
> resolution in September. I would still like to show SC22 our latest 
> draft, but I don't think a ballot is needed. Does everyone agree with 
> this? If so, item 5.1 of the minutes should be amended.

I agree.  I am afraid the draft minutes are incorrect anyway.  It was
the revised ISO directives, not the JTC1 ones, that were being
referenced at the meeting, without taking account of the JTC1
Supplement.  The 2016 JTC1 Supplement has not yet been published but
it appears from the draft that the words quoted above (section 2.3.1)
are unchanged.

The simplest fix to the minutes would be to delete the relevant
sentence, and to split the paragraph into two, making 5.1 read:

   "John Reid said he intended to submit a new work item proposal for
   the revised standard at the SC22 meeting in September.

   Revised ISO Directives would require wording and format changes in
   the document."


More information about the J3 mailing list