From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 13:06:23 CST
Theo,
Further following up from what Mark Davis responded...
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > All comments are reviewed at the next UTC meeting. Due to the volume, we
> > don't reply to each and every one what the disposition was. If actions were
> > taken, they are recorded in the minutes of the meetings.
>
> But what if an action was not taken. Do I have to keep reporting a particular
> problem until it's gone?
Instead of expecting a bureaucratic response, as if from a
governmental organization staffed up with clerks whose job it
is to track this kind of stuff, a *practical* approach would be
to:
A. Check the public minutes when they become available.
B. Check the disposition of a Public Review Issue on the
website, when it becomes available.
C. If neither of those seems to have explicitly addressed some
item that you provided feedback on, then contact (offlist)
someone who did attend the meeting in question, and see
if they have information about the item in question.
If none of A, B, or C satisfies you, *then* submit another
problem report, including a more explicit request in it
for an explicit response regarding its disposition.
If *that* doesn't suffice, then work with a UTC participant
to submit a UTC position paper on the problem, asking for
an agenda item and an explicit position to be taken on the
record. The UTC may decline to do so, depending on the nature
of the perceived problem, but you will find out why and
get the explicit feedback you are seeking.
It is all about knowing how to work the voluntary standards
process.
The Unicode Consortium Public Review Input process is a
process whereby the consortium solicits and gathers
input from interested experts in the public regarding
issues for which it seems advisable to the committee to
do so -- where an issue may not be open and shut, where
there is reason to expect outsider stakeholders want to
provide input, and so forth.
The Public Review Input process is *not* an attempt to clone
the JTC1 ballot voting process, with its requirement to provide
a written Disposition of Comments regarding every comment
made on a ballot by a National Body voting on an ISO standard.
> Also, there is no way of telling which problems
> already have been reported a dozen times before.
This has generally not been an issue. There are occasional
repeat reports of the same problem, but it isn't worth
trying to engineer a solution to a non-problem.
The main check against people submitting repeat reports of
errors is asking them to explicitly check the Updates and Errata
page before submitting reports. The UTC does try to keep
that page current with reports of significant errors that
have been reported and corrected already.
> Assuming the comments
> reported are archived, why can't this archive be made accessible to the
> unicode list?
Because that would likely create more noise than do any
good.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 21 2004 - 13:14:17 CST