Comments on Policies and Procedures

Gene Milligan Gene_Milligan at
Thu Mar 30 04:47:06 PST 1995

John Lohmeyer produced and reviewed a flow diagram which has now been included 
in 94-198r2.

On or about 03/02/95 05:31:06 PM Lansing Sloan wrote a number of editorial 
comments for the X3T10 Policies and Procedures. All of his suggested 
corrections have been included in 94-198r2 which has been uploaded to the BBS 
as 94-198r2.doz. It is WFW 6.0.

Lansing started with a comment:
>(1) In clause 2.4, second paragraph, it says the project editor or
>proposer "shall identify the technical changes which are newly
>included in the revision to be accepted."  This wording is rather
>awkward in the case of a document that has not been accepted
>previously.  Presumably changes from unaccepted versions are what
>you intend, and if someone is asking for acceptance of a first draft
>then all technical features should be identified.  I don't think
>a change is required here, I think the wording allows for common
>sense interpretation, but thought to mention it in case something's
>not quite what you intended.

 Looking at this in view of Lansing's comment I did make an editorial change as 

" When a revised or new document is moved for acceptance, the project editor, 
or proposer if there is no project editor, shall identify the technical changes 
which are newly included in the revision to be accepted. The identification can 
take the form of a listing of item document numbers which are newly 
incorporated. This requirement is facilitated by the fact that the project 
editor is not authorized to make technical changes without an applicable item 
proposal as <<is required for>> any other participant. For technical items 
which are instigated verbally through a meeting motion rather than an item 
paper, such items shall be identified by reference to the meeting minutes 
document number. Since Working Draft  acceptance is not final action, only a 
majority of those members voting is required for acceptance." 

 But Lansing, the wording assumes a document is generally familiar to the 
committee but, in the case you point out, has not been previously accepted. It 
is likely that the proposal to accept it will result after some key change(s) 
has been made. The object, especially assuming the document is hot off the 
presses at the meeting, is to identify the new change(s) that has led to the 
proposal to accept the document.


More information about the T10 mailing list