This is turning on bureaucrat bashing and those of you interested in that topic should turn you focus on another new mail thread with a different title that I can safely ignore.
Concerning access to WG2 document, I am (as new WG2 convenor and ongoing project editor for 10646) very unimpressed by new ISO policies concerning access to documents which make WG repository even less accessible than their parent (SC) repository. And they now require ISO Global Directory credential to get meaningful access to anything within the ISO document system. There are ways for national bodies to nominate experts to have access to WG but it is cumbersome. Even I, despite my dual role, had initially no access to the ballots I was creating! I had to be creative to get access. For documents that need to be accessible to both UTC and WG2 I have suggested a new mechanism by which UTC contributions (such as Anshu's) can be referenced by link using simple catch-all WG2 documents (typically done by UTC liaison or Debbie Anderson). I will always post documents directly if it is the author wish but it is not necessary, as long as the UTC link is open and stable (no problem there). I am also considering creating a mirror site of the new WG2 directory under Unicode server but it would have been password protected (password can be simple and easy to find). I have no intent to withdraw anything from the old WG2 website (it is now in archive mode), doing so would create awkward situations for repertoires that have been adopted. For the new site, I would respectfully ask Anshu to reconsider, this is not helping my task but instead making even more complicated (if that's possible). Concerning 10646 usefulness, please understand that there is still a large portion of constituencies (especially in Asia) that can only contribute to an ISO blessed entity. Most of the CJK work, and yet to be encoded Asian minority repertoires can only be done by joint work between UTC and ISO. It is a tad an American centric idea to think that you can totally ignore 10646, especially if you do business in China, Japan, or Korea. Unicode and UTC are very Bay Area centric (mostly for financial reasons, because no one will fund meetings overseas), but it does create impediment for other constituencies to participate. ISO, although imperfect, offer these constituencies a voice. For example the Ideographic Rapporteur Group (IRG) under WG2 is the group where CJK content can be either updated or augmented. Furthermore, many folks in Europe still cherish the additional forum that ISO provides. Unicode officers (to which I also belong) are looking in ways to improve the situation on their side by creating more direct communication with IRG and Asian constituencies but it is a complicated process. For most of the Unicode crowd it is not even in their radar (unless you deal with Asian scripts), but don't think all of you can totally ignore ISO at this stage. Good for you, some of us carry most of the burden of that complicated situation, so that you can do your work in simpler ways. Best Michel
