There is a transition period, until July 1st, 2011, where some in progress work can continue to follow the old rules, while new projects start under the new procedures. So I would not say the old Directives are dead, but they are only used for the in-progress work, and only for the next 12 months. That’s my read of it.

It is quite possible that things were lost in the move to the new documents. You mention the interop annex. I just noticed also that they lost the clause on how an organization can become a Category A Liaison like Ecma. They define the rights of such a liaison, but never talk about how one applies for or is approved to have that status.

It would be good to have a comprehensive list of the “documents which provide further guidance”. Surely one must be ISO Directives, Part 2, which provides the drafting guidelines for standards. Another one must be the PAS Management Guide. There may be others.

It is not clear to me that the Supplement is intended to replace the Directives. The Supplement states at lines 117-120:

“Part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives, together with this Supplement, provides procedural rules to be followed by ISO/IEC JTC 1. There are, however, other documents which provide further guidance, such as JTC 1 Standing Documents. Forms unique to JTC 1 are found in the Templates at
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=8913214&objAction=browse&sort=name [.]”

The linked page includes a download link for ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th ed., rev. 3. I’ve found no language in the Supplement thus far indicating that it supercedes the JTC 1 Directives. That’s an important issue to resolve because JTC 1 Directives provide in relevant part:

“This document replaces the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 – Procedures for the technical work, but has been developed to be consistent with them. Any differences between this document and the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 are dictated by the nature of information technology work and have been authorised by the ISO Secretary-General and IEC General-Secretary ( Secretaries-General) and Councils of IEC and ISO. Where differences between this document and the ISO/IEC Directives exist, the provisions of this document shall govern.”

Any enlightenment to offer here? Did I miss something in the Supplement?

If you look at “normal” progression (not Fast Track) you see a similar pattern. Committee Stage (CD) is “the principal stage at which comments from national bodies are taken into consideration, with a view to reaching consensus on the technical content. National bodies shall therefore carefully study the texts of committee drafts and submit all pertinent comments at this stage” (2.5.1). But at higher stages, for example when when JTC1 votes on the FDIS, you have the same restriction as a DIS, that you cannot submit conditional Yes votes (2.7.2).

I think the logic of the voting rules is clear. “No with comments”, means you wish the DIS to be defeated. “Yes with (or without) comments” means you want it to pass. If more than 25% vote disapproval, then there is no second chance for the proposal. It essentially “goes back to committee”, in the DIS case back to the submittor of the Fast Track. But this is no different than for a home-grown JTC1 draft, right? If you get too many disapproval votes in an FDIS ballot, you do not go to a BRM. It also reverts back to the subcommittee.

So what do you do in your hypothetical Denmark situation, where you see a DIS that you “kind of like” but have some technical issues? Well, what would you do for a non-Fast Track draft at that stage? I don’t think the intent of Fast Track and PAS is to have a different set of criteria for the technical contents of the drafts.

Thanks for the narrative of these complicated documents.

I think the clarification on when to vote “no with comments” is good – Denmark has consistantly been using this check-box when we wanted to apply maximum pressure to get things changes after a ballot.

However – I do think that the possibility of having the DIS die at this point might have contradictory consequences. Denmark has repeatedly been voting “no with comments” to proposals where we kindof liked it – but that there were things we would like to have changed before voting yes. With the changed rules, we might end up not having a second vote if enough feel like we do.

Any thoughts on this?