From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 10 2009 - 09:37:36 CDT
One more clarification from my side seems to be required:
What I've wanted to say is that the process in WG2 would generally benefit
from having a proposal scrutinized by the UTC prior to its processing in
WG2. The actual sequence of the initial submissions is in my mind of no
particular importance, but the feedback from the UTC could lead to a
revision of the proposal before its WG2 processing.
Lähettäjä: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Lähetetty: 10. toukokuuta 2009 14:51
Kopio: 'Michael Everson'; 'unicode UnicodeDiscussion'
Aihe: RE: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)
Quoting "Erkki I. Kolehmainen" <email@example.com>:
> As you are well aware, I (we) have wittnessed both expertise and lack
> of it in both the WG2 meetings and at the UTC (although I've never
> attended any UTC meeting). I did not intend to imply that expertise
> would be concentrated in the UTC as opposed to WG2.
> However, since WG2 solely decides what will go out to the National
> Bodies for ballot, it is often beneficial for this decision if a
> proposal has been scrutinized by the UTC eperts. At WG2 there is no
> automatic acceptance of the UTC outcome - nor should there be.
It is best for a proposal to be scrutinized by a wide range of
experts. When a proposal is submitted to the WG2 too close to a
meeting to allow proper scruntiny by all those concerned. If the
requirement was all proposals first go to the UTC this would add an
extra step to the process and hence slow things down. Once a doucment
is posted on the WG2 site it is public and can be scrutinized by
experts both UTC and otherwise. A document submitted to the UTC is
not publically available and therefore gets less scrutiny.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 10 2009 - 09:41:46 CDT