At 19:13 -0800 2003-12-15, Doug Ewell wrote:
The North Korean and Chinese national bodies have already made proposals
that violate both the letter and spirit of stability policies.
Yes. And we have rejected them.
I'm glad the U.S. national body will stay involved, but having to rely
on that does
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> One of the reasons why "national bodies" (the standardization
> organizations of the various countries that participate in the
> ISO framework) make longterm commitments to participation in
> the ISO standards is to ensure the *stability* of the standards
> that concern
Doug wrote:
> Perhaps that is Peter's point: that some day, changes in the membership
> and market pressures (which have shown to be an influence on other ISO
> committees) could result in a different attitude toward the written
> policies of WG2 from that which currently exists.
>
>
> It s
Not to prolong this thread, but... Doug wrote:
> There may be a parallel, however tenuous, in the Federalist Papers, a
> series of articles that led to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.
Sorry, factual error. Those papers did not *lead* to the drafting of the
Constitution, they were a set o
John Cowan wrote:
>> You may personally be very determined not to make such changes, but
>> presumably there is a mechanism by which in principle you might be
>> outvoted within WG2.
>
> That would require a revolution in the membership as well as the
> policies of WG2, which is committed (jointl
5 matches
Mail list logo
