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
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth dot com 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,
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 of
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.
excision of
Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase dot com 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
5 matches
Mail list logo
