RE: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)

From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 08:41:39 CDT

  • Next message: Eric Muller: "The Next Age of Discovery"

    I had already decided to quit my participation in this thread, but it looks
    like one more posting is called for.

    I have clearly stated that there should be no rubber stamping by either WG2
    or the UTC. I have been often enough in the course of over ten years at the
    WG2 (and even WG3) and SC2 meetings to know what participation there is

    In response to Michael's point in another note – "Can you prove BMP need?"
    (You remember UPA, Erkki.): Yes, I do remember, and I have always welcomed
    any and all questions related to the proposals that I have been working on,
    since I believe in an open, transparent process. If one doesn't have the
    right answers, too bad.

    Sincerely, Erkki

    -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
    Lähettäjä: []
    Puolesta Andrew West
    Lähetetty: 11. toukokuuta 2009 12:45
    Vastaanottaja: unicode Unicode Discussion
    Aihe: Re: VS: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)

    2009/5/11 Erkki I. Kolehmainen <>:
    > Proposals that have been submitted from WG2 to SC2 for balloting are
    > routinely accepted as such by a somewhat smaller set of the same
    > participants in SC2. Thereafter they are regularly changed by ballot
    > comments, i.e., following the ISO procedures. Prior processing by the
    > UTC does/would reduce the need for these changes.

    Or in some cases increase the need for changes at the ballot stages. It is
    not, as Erkki seems to be implying, the purpose of WG2 to rubber stamp UTC

    The best policy is for proposals to be submitted to both the UTC and WG2 at
    the same time, which is normally the case for proposals from experienced
    proposers, but it does not matter too much if a proposal is only submitted
    to the UTC (as most novice proposals are) or only to WG2 (as many NB
    proposals are), as they will still be seen by both committees.

    In my experience (although I admit that I have never attended a UTC
    meeting) experts on particular scripts under consideration are more likely
    to attend WG2 meetings (as NB or invited experts) than they are to attend
    UTC meetings, so WG2 meetings are usually the best place to sort out
    difficult issues with particular proposals. So for example, at the recent
    WG2 meeting at Dublin the Chinese delegation included experts on Nüshu,
    Jurchen and Tangut, so we were able to have constructive ad hocs on these
    scripts, which I doubt would be the case at a UTC meeting. On the other
    hand, as has been pointed out, the UTC may well be the best place to discuss
    issues involving character properties and such like.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 11 2009 - 08:44:19 CDT