From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 16:50:03 CST
On 27/11/2004 06:29, John Cowan wrote:
> ...
>
>>But formally these other bodies do have the right to
>>outvote Unicode, and in effect to force Unicode to reverse its decisions
>>- or else to reverse its policy of maintaining compatibility.
>>
>>
>
>Formally, yes. However, by acts of self-abnegation, WG2 has a fixed
>policy of not overriding the UTC or vice versa.
>
>
>
But what happens when a proposal put forward by the UTC is rejected by
voting members of WG2, which are ISO member bodies worldwide? For
example, I note from http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2876.pdf
that the latest proposed amendments to 10646 have been approved by only
6 of 31 voting members and disapproved by 5, with 7 abstentions and 13
votes not received after the deadline. Now it may be that the issues
which caused the votes against will be resolved; and I don't know what
the voting rules are, whether the 6 votes are enough for approval as
they are more than the 5. But this certainly shows that it is by no
means certain that ISO member bodies will approve amendments proposed by
the UTC.
So what does WG2 do? Does it follow its fixed policy of agreeing with
the UTC despite negative votes? Does "self-abnegation" trump democracy?
Or is the UTC put in the position that it is forced to retract or amend
its proposals?
Presumably also UTC members could decide to reverse their policy on this
one as well. And with new voting members joining a rather small group,
you never know what might happen.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 16:56:21 CST