From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (eik@iki.fi)
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 08:41:39 CDT
I had already decided to quit my participation in this thread, but it looks
like one more posting is called for.
I have clearly stated that there should be no rubber stamping by either WG2
or the UTC. I have been often enough in the course of over ten years at the
WG2 (and even WG3) and SC2 meetings to know what participation there is
like.
In response to Michael's point in another note – "Can you prove BMP need?"
(You remember UPA, Erkki.): Yes, I do remember, and I have always welcomed
any and all questions related to the proposals that I have been working on,
since I believe in an open, transparent process. If one doesn't have the
right answers, too bad.
Sincerely, Erkki
-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
Puolesta Andrew West
Lähetetty: 11. toukokuuta 2009 12:45
Vastaanottaja: unicode Unicode Discussion
Aihe: Re: VS: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)
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 - 08:44:19 CDT