From: Erkki Kolehmainen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 03:17:13 CDT
Dear Mr. Sadek,
The corresponding ISO committee is ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC2 and its WG2 is
specifically dealing with the 10646. All WG2 meetings are minuted in
great detail (thanks to Uma), and the outcomes of the ad hoc groups of
experts that are being set up on the side as needed to resolve major
issues are presented as WG documents to provide the basis for decisions
by the full WG. Although the WG with its many additional (non-UTC)
experts from the various ISO National Bodies may occasionally conclude
that the debate at the UTC on a given proposal has been exhaustive, it
would be grossly unfair and misleading to characterize it as a
rubberstamping organization (in which case surely no ad hoc groups would
be needed). - The next WG2 meeting will take place in Sophia Antipolis
on September 12th-15th, 2005. Come and see yourself (and participate)!
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Coordinator, Cultural Diversity Issues in ICT
(Liaison to Unicode, Member of SC2/WG2 et al.)
Research Institute for the Languages of Finland
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Hallissy" <Bob_Hallissy@sil.org>
>>>Is this decision process transparent and documented?
> Well, what are you saying? There is no written documented rationale (this is not a minor point!) and these decisions are only debated at the UTC?
> What about written documented traces of past decisions from the ISO corresponding commitee? Is this ISO committee just a rubberstamping organisation once the UTC has met?
> Ashraf Sadek
> St Elias Coptic Community
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 03:18:12 CDT