In general I am not opposed to just including on the ISO639JAC a member of the registration authority for 639-3. I am not too concerned about the text of 639-2, since it is not the only thing that will be out of date and we do need to have it revised (and should have a year ago). But I'm wondering about the following issues: 1. The JAC is set up to have the chair rotate between the 2 registration authorities-- will this need to be changed? I'm not sure that we could do that without a reballot of the standard. (On the other hand, the chair doesn't do that much these days, now that we have a secretary.) 2. It does change the balance of the committee in terms of voting. That may not be a problem practically speaking. Would the 639-3 representative be a voting member? But I think voting only applies to 639-1 and 639-2, not 639-3 (that is, the process of change/add to 639-3 does not involve a committee that votes)? I would suggest that we take this up on our next JAC teleconference. Rebecca On Wed, 3 May 2006, Peter Constable wrote: > I'm preparing the FDIS text for 639-3 and need to act on the > disposition of ballot comments accepted by WG1 at the Warsaw meeting > last year. One of the comments had come from the ISO 639-2 RA (LOC): > > > > The issue of JAC membership needs to be clarified. Currently section > A.3 contains the statement "ISO 639/RA/JAC shall include one > representative of the ISO 639-3/RA." It is not clear if this means > that one of the existing three representatives from TC37 will serve > that funtion or if this is a fourth representative from TC37. At the > ISO 639-RA/JAC meeting in January 2004, it was agreed that the makeup > of the JAC should maintain a balance of representation from TC 37 and > TC 46 - 3 members each - and thus that a representative of SIL (the > designated RA for 639-3) should fill one of the three TC 37 positions. > > > > This WG decision for this comment was not accepted, with the following > note: > > > > The consensus of the working group is that the make-up of the JAC > should include three representative each from TC 37 and from TC 46, > and in addition should include one representative each from the > registration authorities for part 1, part 2 and part 3; that is, a > total membership of 9. The representatives from registration > authorities are not perceived to be representing either TC 37 or TC > 46. > > > > As project editor, I basically have no choice but to make sure the > FDIS for 639-3 reflects that decision. Of course, this is something > that the JAC will probably want to process, which is why I mention it > here. > > > > One small issue is that we will end up with essentially two different > statements regarding the make-up of the ISO 639-RA/JAC: one statement > found in part 1 and in part 2, and another in part 3: > > > > Here's the statement from ISO 639-1:2002, which is identical to that > in ISO 639-2:1998: > > > > A.3.1 Composition > > ISO 639/RA-JAC is composed of > > * one representative of the International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm; representing ISO 639-1/RA), > > * one representative of the Library of Congress (LC; representing ISO 639-2/RA), > > * three representatives of ISO/TC 37 (nominated by ISO/TC 37), and > > * three representatives of ISO/TC 46 (nominated by ISO/TC 46). > > Both ISO/TCs may nominate substitute representatives. > > > > Here's the statement from ISO/DIS 639-3 (which will not change in this > regard in the FDIS - statements having to do with responsibilities but > not composition omitted): > > > > A.3 Composition and responsibilities of the Joint Advisory Committee > ISO 639/RA-JAC > > The composition and responsibilities of ISO 639/RA-JAC are defined in ISO 639-1, A.3 and ISO 639-2, A.3. This part of ISO 639 adds the following to the definition: > > * ISO 639/RA-JAC shall include one representative of the ISO 639-3/RA. > > * .... > > > > Thus, the statement in 639-3 is written as though it were effectively > amending the statement in parts 1 and 2. Since nobody besides the JAC > is affected by statements of its composition, it seems to me that the > difference between the two statements is not a problem as long as we > have an understanding among us regarding who the members are. > > > > > > > > Peter Constable > > > > > > > >