{"id":157,"date":"2008-03-06T14:31:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-06T19:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/2d823b65bb.nxcli.io\/2008\/03\/jtc1-improv-comedy-theater.html"},"modified":"2008-03-06T14:31:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-06T19:31:00","slug":"jtc1-improv-comedy-theater","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/2008\/03\/jtc1-improv-comedy-theater.html","title":{"rendered":"JTC1 Improv Comedy Theater"},"content":{"rendered":"

JTC1 has been improvising its Fast Track processing from the start of the DIS 29500 procedure.<\/p>\n

The latest “let’s invent a new rule” came at the BRM in Geneva, where a novel approach to tallying meeting votes was surreptitiously foisted on delegations, one which is clearly against the plain text of JTC1 Directives.<\/p>\n

The question is how votes should be counted at a Fast Track BRM, where consensus cannot be reached, in this case for lack of time. Specifically, in that final batch-vote on 1027 comments, how should votes be counted. I believe the rules call for positions to be established by the majority of P-members. The leadership of the meeting instead counted both P-members and O-members. In the balance lies the fate of over 100 Ecma proposals which may or may not be included in the final text of the DIS, depending on how this question is resolved.<\/p>\n

Let’s review the rules, from the current JTC1 Directives<\/a> (5th Edition, Version 3.0)<\/p>\n

First let’s start with the overriding rule from section 1.2 “General Provisions”:<\/p>\n

These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or in plain English \u2014 “These are the rules, you can’t just make stuff up”.<\/p>\n

So what is a P-member and an O-member? This is covered in chatper 3 “Membership Categories and Obligations”. P-members are defined as:<\/p>\n

P-members within JTC 1 shall be NBs that are Member Bodies of ISO or National Committees of IEC, or both. Only one NB per country is eligible for membership in JTC 1. P-members have power of vote and defined duties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

and O-members are defined as:<\/p>\n

Any NB that is a Member Body of ISO or National Committee of IEC, or both, may elect to be an O-member within JTC 1. Correspondent members of ISO are also eligible to be O-members of JTC 1. O-members have no power of vote, but have options to attend meetings, make contributions and receive documents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So clear enough? O-members can attend meetings and contribute, but cannot vote. P-members can vote at meetings.<\/p>\n

Section 9 deals with the voting rules, and 9.1.4 speaks about meeting votes in particular:<\/p>\n

In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, in a meeting, only P-members vote and they vote by majority. “Except as otherwise specified in these directives” means that this rule can be overridden in specific cases. But the override must be “specified”, i.e., actually written down that it is an override of the normal meeting voting rules.<\/p>\n

So drilling down a level deeper we come to the Fast Track rules themselves in chapter 13, where in 13.8 is covered meeting votes at a Fast Track BRM:<\/p>\n

At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So on the surface this seems to be a vague statement. What are “normal JTC 1 procedures”? However, a moment’s reflection on 9.1.4 above shows that the Directives have already declared this as the normal procedure for meeting votes by saying that this is the rule that holds unless specified otherwise.<\/p>\n

One can easily seek confirmation of this by looking at the parallel rules for PAS process BRM votes, given in 14.4.3.9. Here it is more explicit:<\/p>\n

At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable, the approval criteria in the subclause 9.1.4 is applied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So despite the clear and plain text of the Directives, the JTC1 leadership decided to improvise a new rule, or more precisely the application of a different rule in the wrong context. The argument appears to be that section 9.5 applies to BRM votes. Section 9.5 “Combined Voting Procedure” is introduced as:<\/p>\n

The voting procedure which uses simultaneous voting (one vote per country) by the P members fo [sic] JTC 1 and by all ISO member bodies and IEC national committees on a letter ballot is called the combined voting procedure. This procedure shall be used on FDISs, DISs, FDAMs, DAMs and FDISPs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is absurd. JTC1 Directives are not a menu. You can’t just pick what voting procedure you want to use from the list. The Directives tell you what procedure to use. First, the combined voting procedure is for letter ballots given to an NB, not for a BRM meeting vote by a delegation. Second, the BRM was not voting on an FDIS, DIS, FDAM, DAM or FDISP. We were voting on whether to include changes into a set of meeting resolutions. We were told repeatedly that the BRM could not<\/span> take a position on the DIS. Finally, if combined voting procedures are read as applying to Fast Track, then they would also, by that same logic, need to apply equally to PAS, since both PAS and Fast Track are DIS’s. But as shown earlier, the PAS process explicitly calls for P-member majority voting according to 9.1.4.<\/p>\n

One does not arrive at the voting rules of 9.5 by any straightforward or natural reading of the Directives.<\/p>\n

So again, repeating from JTC1 Directions 1.2:<\/p>\n

These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I wasn’t in favor of having any batch ballot, because it violates the spirit of the consensus process, as defined in JTC1 Directives 1.2:<\/p>\n

These Directives are inspired by the principle that the objective in the development of International Standards should be the achievement of consensus between those concerned rather than a decision based on counting votes.<\/p>\n

[Note: Consensus is defined as general agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity. (ISO\/IEC Guide 2:1996)]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To resort to “counting votes” on the vast majority of the technical issues of DIS 29500, without discussion or opportunity for objection, this is a failure of the JTC1 process. But if we are to have a vote at all, then let it be done in accordance with the rules.<\/p>\n

So, let’s stop the nonsense. Let’s quit the tortuous post facto reinterpretation of the rules<\/a>. Let’s recount and republish the results of the BRM counted according to the Directives<\/span> and move on with the process. If JTC1 cannot consistently adhere to its own rules, then it should consider another line of business.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

JTC1 has been improvising its Fast Track processing from the start of the DIS 29500 procedure. The latest “let’s invent a new rule” came at the BRM in Geneva, where a novel approach to tallying meeting votes was surreptitiously foisted on delegations, one which is clearly against the plain text of JTC1 Directives. The question […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-157","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-ooxml","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}