[SCL] Re: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[John F. Sowa]

Pat,

Just one point:

>First, I personally am not centrally concerned with achieving ISO 
>standardization status, and am not willing to undertake the effort of 
>achieving that status, or to work within a framework in which 
>technical decisions are made by international compromise.  Emphasise 
>'personal' and 'central'.

I can assure you that no technical decisions will be made
by international compromise.  That is not how ISO works.

If and when we have a draft that the SCL group feels happy
with and which Harry has helped us include the formatting
and boilerplate that ISO wants, the draft will be sent out
for a 6-month public review.

During that review, anybody in the world can comment on the
document.  At the end of that time, the following may occur:

 1. There are no complaints whatever.  In that case, the
    draft becomes an ISO standard.

 2. There are only editorial suggestions, but no technical
    changes.  In that case, the editorial suggestions are
    taken into account, and the revised version becomes
    an ISO standard.

 3. There are technical issues (in addition to possible
    editorial changes).  If all the issues can be answered
    without requiring any technical changes, then the draft
    can become a standard.

 4. There are technical problems that require technical changes.
    Then the changes must be made, and the revised draft must
    be resubmitted for another 6-month review.

Note that nobody is going to force us into a compromise
unless we truly meet an unsolvable technical problem.
Even then, we are the ones who make the changes.

I see no problem with being required to submit to a 6-month
public review.  On the contrary, I would be very suspicious of
any standard that was not required to submit to such a review.

John