tgf — archive

[Peter Brown]

Andy, John, all - In order to be able to address all the points raised by TC members and non-members alike, I will use the following systematic approach, as recommended by many TC's: - each issue, however minor, will be tabulated with an indication of the change proposed and rationale; - Chris and I will give an opinion as editors (and where useful additionally from other original contributors) and a "proposed disposition"; - the proposed disposition will be communicated back to the comment submitter with an offer to accept or further comment; - this completed tabulation will be circulated to the TC for further comment; - we will go through the list of unresolved issues at our meeting next week. One note of caution: there is no formal provision in the TC process to consider "non-substantive changes" that could avoid a further 15-day review. The TC process wording is very clear on this: "If any changes are made to the draft after the public review, whether as a result of public review comments or from TC Member input, then the TC must conduct another review cycle. The draft may not be considered for approval by the TC as a Committee Specification or Committee Note until it has undergone a review cycle during which it has received no comments that result in any changes." I would argue therefore that the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate unequivocally that all issues raised are so minor as to not constitute "changes" but this may be difficult to sustain. Only the TC can determine whether that is the case for all comments - at worst, it will mean signing off as a completed spec at our December rather than the November meeting. Let's see how the work progresses in the next week or so... Best regards, Peter Peter F Brown Independent Consultant www.peterfbrown.com P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278