I have stated it before: We are not establishing the normal "liaison" in the
ISO sense here. For that kind of liaison a formal acceptance by parent
committee and ISO is required. My point is the following: We need some
individual experts. Those we "volunteer" to serve as members or observers on
the JAC. However, there are also some institutions and organizations that
should be consulted "as organization". They should be allowed to nominate
one person -- that nomination should not be JAC's responsibility. The latter
I have called "liaison"; we could have called it something else ("observer
organization" sounds funny); but as long as we know what we are dealing
with, I think that "liaison" is an acceptable term.
In ISO-speak a liaisonship is actually uni-directional. It is an
organization who wishes to contribute to the work in a committee that
approaches ISO to get liaison status. Between standardization committees
liaisonship is normally bi-directional, but it doesn't have to be!
Our "liaisons" will in principle be uni-directional. The liaison officers
are expected to contribute to the work with 639. We are not expected to
contribute to their work! For the liaison officers to contribute to 639,
they will need to share their knowledge and resources with JAC. JAC is
already sharing its findings with the whole world.
If a commercial organization is willing to support the JAC and the work with
639 in this way, I don't see how that can possibly be any problem.
Havard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
NO-1430 As, Norway
tel: +47-64944233 & +47-64963684
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Keld Jorn Simonsen
Sent: 4. april 2002 19:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Commercialism or not [Re: Liaisons to JAC]
I think it is customary with liaisons that each liaison
is treated as a member in the other organization, and thus one
membership is waived for that person. The liaison then
can get information to the organisations documents,
and attend meetings, and then forward documents after getting
permission to do so to the other organisation.
I believe such an arrangement is necessary for a liaison to
function, and recommend that we do not pursue this if
the liaison does not get access to documents and meetings
in the other organisation.
Or if this is not possible, then do not call them liaison.