I fully agree with Peter.
I used to be heavily involved in SC2 and its working groups since the turn of the century and I’ve been party to several proposals and other contributions. The activity of the National Bodies has decreased in the past few years (particularly that of the European countries), mostly due to the fact that the bulk of the encoding work directly related to them is nearly complete, but SC2 still has an important role to play. Although I’m strongly against undue bureaucracy, I also understand that the members of ISO, the National Bodies, want to ensure that the technical proposals have been vetted prior to their submission, particularly if they turn up being somehow attached to the National Body of the submitter’s home country. I highly appreciate the work of the conveners (Mike Ksar and more recently Michel Suignard), the project editors and the recording secretary (Uma Umamaheswaran). The liaison with Unicode has brought in a lot of technical expertise, which has been most beneficial in the course of the years. WG2 hasn’t had a general email discussion facility (although Michael Everson has privately maintained some lists for specific topics) for which purpose the Unicode list has been used. Sincerely, Erkki Lähettäjä: Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] Puolesta Peter Constable Lähetetty: 17. kesäkuuta 2015 01:53 Vastaanottaja: Marcel Schneider Kopio: Unicode Mailing List Aihe: RE: Accessing the WG2 document register There are changes in processes, but nothing that I would consider new _discrimination_. Also, Mr. Pandey’s positions have always and continue to be very well represented in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2. Again, if you are not yourself engaging in ISO processes or working with your country’s national standards body in connection to ISO processes, then you are not in a good position to be critiquing ISO processes. Peter From: Marcel Schneider [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 10:05 AM To: Peter Constable Cc: Unicode Mailing List Subject: RE: Accessing the WG2 document register Importance: High On Mon, Jun 15, 2015, Peter Constable <[email protected]> wrote: > I suggest that people on this list that have not personally engaged directly > in ISO process via their country’s > designated standards bodies should stop opining and editorializing on that > body. > > ISO isn’t perfect by any means, but in the many years I have been directly > involved in ISO process > I can’t say I’ve ever seen discrimination other than appropriate > discrimination of ideas on technical merits. Please consider that Mr Pandey reported a *new* rule change and *new* discrimination you canʼt have experienced in the past. If you have carefully read the emails in this thread, you learned that this new discrimination is all but “appropriate discrimination of ideas on technical merits” which you refer to. You will be the more indignated, and the more you will welcome everybody who does the same. Having the honor of discussing here, I take the matters (I know about) very seriously and I know since a long time that unfortunately, persons who are obliged to bodies by contract tend not to point out malfunctioning, so other people must help to point out and find ways to correct or improve. Even if scarcely expecting any thanks, I underscore that unfortunately I canʼt afford to do this every day because it takes time, normally I must think about, mature and consolidate. It would be nice if you too, Mr Constable, thanks to your inside experience and relationships from your ISO activity, would help Mr Pandey to get heard at ISO Workgroup 2 and accessed the documents register. As everybody knows, every person who comes up with proposals deserves full attention, respect and consideration, especially when the person did already great work and got meritorious. ISO managers who persistently prevent workgroups from ethics, deserve to be moved from the responsibilities they do not fulfill. Everybody on the Unicode Mailing List is well placed to know that Unicode publicly reports about its activities and accepts public feedback. Quality insurance seems little reason for ISO not to accept input from outside national Standards Bodies. What are you knowing about the reasons ISO does not, and even recently narrowed its eligibility conditions? Best wishes, Marcel Schneider
