Re: ISO Time frame (was Re: Meeting minutes 2017-06-06)

Leonard,

I do not think we should try to create an International Standard.  Since
EPUB is ISO/IEC
<http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=35&ics2=240&ics3=30&csnumber=53255>TS
30135
<http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=35&ics2=240&ics3=30&csnumber=53255>,
our goal for EPUB Accessibility should be a
TS (Technical Specification).  It is simply impossible to create an IS
based on a TS using the normal process.

This means that neither a CD nor a DIS is needed.  We only need a
Proposed Draft Technical Specification.  It requires a two month ballot.
The New Work Item Proposal certainly needs a ballot, which requires
three months.  I thus think that one year is a reasonable guess.

What is a bit complicated is the parallel ballot.  Since ISO/IEC JTC1/JWG7
is a joint working group bySC34, IEC TC100/TA10, and ISO TC46,
we need a parallel ballot for the PDTS.  But the NWIP ballot can be
done in SC34 only.  I spoke with the SC34 secretariat about this and made
sure.

Regards,
Makoto



2017-06-07 23:53 GMT+09:00 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:

> I just want to comment on the comment from the minutes that the timeframe
> will be “about 1 year”.
>
>
>
> One year is pretty much the minimum for a standard process.  This assumes
> two review periods (CD then DIS) and assumes that ZERO technical comments
> are received on the document during either review period.  If any technical
> comments are received on the CD, then you add a minimum of 3 months for an
> additional CD review period.   (and then repeat until you believe that no
> more technical comments will be received, at which point you go to DIS.)
>
>
>
> To be more specific, the process looks like:
>
> ·         Submit New Work Item (NWI) Committee Draft (CD)
>
> ·         Document is out for 12 week review
>
> ·         ISO committee needs to meet to review/dispose the comments
>
> o    Normally this will happen at standard face to face meetings
> throughout the year, though a special “phone meeting” can be called with
> enough notice BUT requires a minimum number (5) of Participating (P)
> country/member bodies to be present to conduct business
>
> ·         Based on the resolution of comments, either a second CD OR a
> Draft International Standard (DIS) is produced and sent for review
>
> o    CD will require minimum 8 week review
>
> o    DIS requires a 20 week (5 month) review
>
> ·         ISO committee needs to meet to review/dispose the comments
>
> ·         If a CD had been done, then you would now (hopefully!) go to
> DIS (though may end up with another CD)
>
> ·         If DIS was successful without any technical comments, document
> can go direct to publication
>
> ·         If DIS received technical comments, then a Final DIS (FDIS)
> would need to be produced (and then needs an 8 week review + meeting)
>
> ·         Once FDIS is approved, then its “off to publication”
>
>
>
> (I need to make a flowchart of this ☺)
>
>
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> *From: *Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 5:44 AM
> *To: *W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Meeting minutes 2017-06-06
> *Resent-From: *<public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:44:21 +0000
>
>
>
> The minutes are here:
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-pbg-minutes.html
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Ivan
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto