From: Erkki Kolehmainen (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 05:32:44 CDT
As you, Mr. Snyder, apparently are not satisfied with the responses you
have received from others, I feel obliged to still say the following:
If you go through the WG2 material, most of which is freely available on
the web, you'll soon discover that many items have been discussed
extensively (the more tedious ones in the ad hoc groups) leading to many
changes of varying magnitude to the proposals, whether originally
endorsed or opposed by the UTC. Admittedly, many open questions and even
issues are being resolved outside the formal meeting.
As an example of the latter, you might recall the Toronto meeting, where
I first requested the postponing of the decision on an item of
particular interest to you, whereafter I discussed it off-line with you
and several others. In the end, it was your very own statement that
provided the basis for my decision.
The last recorded item in the minutes prior to the disposition
(unanimous approval) is:
(The agenda item was revisited on another day)
k. Mr. Erkki Kolehmainen: I have no objection to this proposal.
I've also been in the submitter role in a number of proposals that have
not always been treated favourably by the UTC at first. There have also
been new decisions initiated at WG2 that have subsequently been adopted
by the UTC (where I've never participated). This is supposed to be a
consensus seeking cooperative mechanism, not a fight.
Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Dean Snyder wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote at 7:07 AM on Thursday, July 7, 2005:
>>>From: Dean Snyder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>>>Suppose there has *never* been an instance in which WG2 rejected a
>>>>UTC recommendation. What would you derive from that?
>>>I would assert that the burden of proof is on you and others to
>>>establish that the WG2 is not a rubber stamp of the UTC.
>>Ah, so you would derive that WG2 is a rubber stamp. That is not at all a
>>valid logical conclusion.
> Based on what facts?
> And anyway who has said it is a logical conclusion; actually I would
> consider it very strong circumstantial evidence.
>>So, you'd put the burden on me (or whomever) to establish this is not
>>the case. Why? Who's conducting an inquiry and why? Is this needed for
>>some criminal investigation? Or simply to satisfy the whims of certain
> It's very simple - in this forum Erkki Kolehmainen made the bald
> statement, "it would be grossly unfair and misleading to characterize it
> as a rubberstamping organization". If the facts are that WG2 approves,
> let's say, 98% of UTC recommendations, then, as I continue to say, the
> burden of proof is on those who would assert that it is not a de facto
> Dean A. Snyder
> Assistant Research Scholar
> Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
> Computer Science Department
> Whiting School of Engineering
> 218C New Engineering Building
> 3400 North Charles Street
> Johns Hopkins University
> Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
> office: 410 516-6850
> cell: 717 817-4897
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 05:33:30 CDT