Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 15:35:39 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646"

    John Cowan clarified the JTC1 process:

    > The result of a
    > "no" vote is that the process loops until all such votes are resolved.

    All comments on a formal JTC1 ballot receive a *disposition*.
    As far as possible, that disposition is done by committee consensus,
    which usually means, in practice, the avoidance of strongly held
    objections by the participants. Creating a disposition does not
    necessarily mean that a comment is *resolved*, however, as a
    comment may turn out to be ill-formed, ambiguous, irreconcilable,
    or balanced against an opposite view by some other national body's

    The process proceeds until the maximal formal consensus can be
    achieved on the ballots -- which doesn't necessarily mean that
    all the No votes are resolved to Yes votes -- just as many as
    prove feasible, given the votes, the comments, and the
    in committee responses by the national body representatives.

    > If consensus cannot be reached, the proposal is eventually
    > dropped, I suppose.

    Note that consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity,
    although unanimity is, of course, the best sign of consensus.

    A *proposal* which does not have some kind of consensus
    generally never makes it into formal ballotting. Once
    a CD (Committee Draft) or an Amendment is in formal ballotting,
    it generally proceeds ahead to publication, although it
    may require extra rounds of ballotting and ballot comment
    resolution, if it proves particularly contentious. An
    excellent example of such a process of repeated substantial
    reworking and reballotting was the original completion of
    ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993 itself. That took many years and multiple
    ballots to complete, and along the way took a fair amount
    of out-of-the-box thinking and some fancy footwork to
    garner sufficient consensus to progress the document to
    the status of International Standard.

    People whose ideas of committee decision making revolve
    around Robert's Rules of Order and recorded motions with
    yea or nay voting may find the JTC1 committee processes
    somewhat arcane and baffling in practice.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 15:37:09 CST