From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 04:44:34 CDT
2009/5/11 Erkki I. Kolehmainen <eik@iki.fi>:
>
> Proposals that have been submitted from WG2 to SC2 for balloting are
> routinely accepted as such by a somewhat smaller set of the same
> participants in SC2. Thereafter they are regularly changed by ballot
> comments, i.e., following the ISO procedures. Prior processing by the UTC
> does/would reduce the need for these changes.
Or in some cases increase the need for changes at the ballot stages.
It is not, as Erkki seems to be implying, the purpose of WG2 to rubber
stamp UTC decisions.
The best policy is for proposals to be submitted to both the UTC and
WG2 at the same time, which is normally the case for proposals from
experienced proposers, but it does not matter too much if a proposal
is only submitted to the UTC (as most novice proposals are) or only to
WG2 (as many NB proposals are), as they will still be seen by both
committees.
In my experience (although I admit that I have never attended a UTC
meeting) experts on particular scripts under consideration are more
likely to attend WG2 meetings (as NB or invited experts) than they are
to attend UTC meetings, so WG2 meetings are usually the best place to
sort out difficult issues with particular proposals. So for example,
at the recent WG2 meeting at Dublin the Chinese delegation included
experts on Nüshu, Jurchen and Tangut, so we were able to have
constructive ad hocs on these scripts, which I doubt would be the case
at a UTC meeting. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the UTC
may well be the best place to discuss issues involving character
properties and such like.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 11 2009 - 04:46:36 CDT