[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Motion for Sep 21: allow more editorial changes
Dan, I'd like to make the following motion at the Sep 21 meeting:
------------
Motion: Allow the style review committee to continue making non substantive
editorial changes until Oct 3.
Rationale: There's still important editorial work in progress -- partly due to
the nomenclature resolution at the last meeting, which caused a lot of changes
to the draft. This work preempted needed review of other aspects of the draft.
The style committee is making good progress and has a record of not introducing
substantive changes. A few more meetings will allow it to cover the most
important remaining work and to wrap up the draft. This will reduce initial
negative impressions of careless work and will facilitate ballot body members in
understanding the draft and focusing on real issues.
------------
I suggest that the style committee meet tomorrow at 11:00, as planned at the
last meeting. The current draft can be preserved pending the outcome of the
motion to allow more editorial work.
-Jim
r754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Oh, as usual, there is no style review the Tuesday before
a meeting. Any output of it would result in too short a
consideration of the draft for the Thursday meeting. - Dan
To: David Hough 754R work <754r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stds-754@xxxxxxxx, r754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: r754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sep 21 meeting action
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:37:47 -0700
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Hough 754R work <754r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: stds-754@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Sep 21 meeting action
I haven't seen an agenda for Sep 21 or minutes for Sep 7, so I'm not
sure exactly what is supposed to happen, but I think it would be just as
well if somebody who wants to forward a specific version of the draft to
MSC from that meeting should announce in advance an intention to so move.
It's complicated by the unconfirmed possibility of another style review
meeting tomorrow, creating another draft to consider on short notice.
My own feeling is that the current draft is not really up to the standard
of 754-1985, and is not likely to get there in a matter of days - the
style reviews have spent too much time at too low a level (the story of
754r's six years wandering in a wilderness of proposals and drafts).
However since the alternative is to shut down without producing anything,
I expect that a majority of working group members will prefer to forward
the best draft that is available for an initial sponsor ballot review,
vote, and response.
I am much more concerned about high-level matters that have not been
addressed well, than with low-level nits about consistent terminology.
The sponsor ballot is sure to elicit objections at both high and low
levels, and these will require some written responses from the working
group, either explanations of reasoning or alterations to the draft.
My assumption is that preparing and approving such responses will require
continuing meetings of the working group until a draft is finally
approved, perhaps through multiple review/ballot/response cycles.
If the process henceforth is different,
somebody who understands it better should explain it.
I hope everybody that has an objection to recent drafts has registered
to join the sponsor ballot group.
I think you will find the agenda is out there now.
It contains one item: Prof Kahan's tabled motion to not send the
draft to the MSC.
I believe the resolution of this motion will serve the purpose
you have in mind.
And, I agree, register to be in the sponsor ballot group.
Until Thursday,
Dan