Re: VOTE on Approval of updated 1647 PAR

From: Andrew Piziali <andy_at_.....>
Date: Thu Sep 04 2008 - 12:34:06 PDT
Jim,

I just returned from an extended vacation, just catching up on email.
On August 25 you wrote:

> I vote to approve the submission of the new PAR for 1647, albeit
> somewhat reluctantly.

> (1) A colleague assures me that it's not possible to see the form that
>     will actually be submitted to NesCom, since the data base in which
>     it is stored does not permit it.

The draft PAR as it is rendered by the IEEE-SA web server is attached
(P1647 Draft PAR.pdf).

> (2) The cover material that we're being asked to vote on is poorly
>     worded.  As it stands, it says that certain specific topics are
>     being considered for inclusion "in" the updated PAR.  After
>     talking to several colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that
>     it could better have been stated that the topics "may be
>     considered under the authorization of the update PAR."

Point well taken.  Victor, if I may include this topic list in the draft
PAR submission to NesCom, I will correct the language per Jim's
suggestion.

>                                                             The poor
>     wording may have contributed to Karen's concern that the items
>     actually appear within the wording of the PAR, which at this point
>     I agree is not necessary.

> (3) I also gather from my colleagues that leaving the "Scope" and
>     "Purpose" entries blank for an update PAR means that NesCom shall
>     assume that they are the same as the "Old Scope" and "Old
>     Purpose".

These are indeed the explicit IEEE-SA instructions for completing the
draft revision PAR.

> (4) I see that the proposed update differs from the PAR approved for
>     1647-2008 in that it no longer considers IEC TC093 as another
>     organization that may also adopt the standard.  I trust that this
>     is intentional.

Yes.  This is intentional.

> With those observations, I do vote to approve the standard.

If you have any other concerns about this draft PAR Jim, please contact
me ASAP.  Thanks!


-- 
	Andrew Piziali, <andy@piziali.dv.org>, +1-214-455-8577
	Skype andrew_piziali

"... unioning allows administrators to keep [related] files separate
physically, but to merge them logically into a single view." -- Charles
P. Wright and Erez Zadok describe an aspect-oriented filesystem in
"Unionfs: Bringing Filesystems Together" in "Linux Journal," 12/04

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Received on Thu Sep 4 12:35:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 04 2008 - 12:35:43 PDT