JTC1 directives for decoration?

Summary:

The JTC1 directives says on art13.2 that the SC secretariat should distribute the final text one month after the BRM. It seems that the ISO chief is even lobbying its members for rejecting the appeals, while leaving them in the dark regarding the interpretation of art13.2.

JTC1 directives for decoration?

zoobab 10 Jul 2008 13:57

Here is what Mr Bryden said in its lobbying letter to the TMB members of ISO:

6. “Final” text of ISO/IEC 29500 or ISO/IEC DIS 29500, or “revised FDIS text”, not released

6e. Correct but irrelevant. The decision being appealed is the JTC 1 decision to approve the draft. The text mentioned in the Directives and by the appellants is not germane to that decision, which must be taken on the basis of the original DIS text and the actions taken by the BRM on the comments. The provision of any revised text is not for purposes of further decision by NBs.

Article 13.2 of the JTC1 directives says that the final has to be distributed to the members one month after the BRM, which was not the case here:

In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance.

As you can see, Mr Bryden says it is irrelevant, trying to argue that the appeal is about something else. It looks like Mr Bryden don't want to read the JTC1 directives. Mr Bryden is just lobbying for the honor of its institution, and I really doubt the judges who will decide about the rules are really neutral either.

Last edited on 10 Jul 2008 14:03 by zoobab Show more

Re: JTC1 directives for decoration?

arebenti 10 Jul 2008 15:56

I would suggest that the non-delivery of a text can be grounds for another appeal procedure and the Indian letter can be interpreted as an appeal based on non-delivery of a final text.

Interesting is this one:

"13. Brazil is not a P-member of ISO/IEC JTC 1 and technically does not have a right to appeal a JTC 1 decision."

As we know the ISO directives speaks of JTC1 and SC.

or:

8. Document does not follow ISO guidelines for presentation of standards

8e. Correct but irrelevant. Fast-track submissions need not follow ISO or IEC guidelines for presentation of standards. The corresponding standard must be made to follow the guidelines from its next revision onwards (see JTC 1 Directives, 13).

Am I the only person who finds the arguments of Alan Bryden funny?

The appeal from Brazil proposes a remedial action of cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the new work item proposal stage, not on the fast track. That from South Africa proposes rediscussing and revoting on “794” edits, all of which were voted on by NBs at the BRM, according to a procedure also approved by NBs at the BRM. That from Venezuela proposes cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the CD stage (not fast track). These actions, reversing decisions reached in accordance with due process by the members of ISO and IEC, would require demonstration of serious procedural problems in the voting.

Why would anyone want to appeal if there were no procedural problems?

According to the Bryden test a TMB has two options:
1. There is no procedural flaw —> reject appeal!
2. They cannot admit the appeal because it would demonstrate the appeals to have any grounds. —> reject appeal!

What comes to my mind is the ordalium, a nice tool of mediaval jurisdiction:

In medieval Europe, like trial by combat, it was considered a judicium Dei: a procedure based on the premise that God would help the innocent by performing a miracle on their behalf.

But if they survived it must have been devil's work…

Last edited on 10 Jul 2008 17:03 by arebenti Show more

Re: JTC1 directives for decoration?

stegu 10 Jul 2008 18:40

I really doubt the judges who will decide about the rules are really neutral either.

Of course they are not, but let's hope they feel the public eye gazing on their decision-making process here, and that they are a little more perceptive than Mr. Bryden concerning what would be the right and honorable thing to do under these circumstances. I really think the honor and reputation of ISO is damaged more by their sticking to the single-minded "everything is normal" attitude rather than admitting their obvious failure to honor the intent of their own directives, and the resultant mockery of the very purpose of standardization. Current events are certainly not a proud moment for ISO.