RE: [office] Approach to Disposition of Comments and Defect Reports

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/08/2008 
03:17:27 PM:

> 
> I had been thinking that there would need to be a provisional response 
to
> SC34 that indicated receipt and our first-pass assignment of 
classification
> and disposition without actually have agreed on an errata item and
> incorporation in any specific Errata or a newer specification, etc.  I
> thought of this because of the time-limit for (initial) responses that 
JTC1
> wants.  If having them track through our handling of public comments, 
that
> certainly works for me.
> 

Remember, our errata is not limited to fixing items reported by SC34.  We 
can also fix items reported by other on the public comment list, or 
defects identified by TC members.  We'll need to somehow track it all.

As for feedback, I think it only makes sense to get feedback from the 
public or SC34 on items that the TC has approved.  There probably isn't 
much value in getting feedback from them on provisional dispositions that 
represent only my or your evaluation of the defect report.  But certainly 
we would welcome feedback -- from anyone -- for dispositions that the TC 
has already approved.  We could probably report that in the TC minutes: 
"The TC approved dispositions for comments 124-130, which are reflected in 
version 14 of the Registry of Public Comments [insert URL here]"

Once we get caught up on comments, approving dispositions within 3-4 weeks 
of receipt should be easy.  But we're not quite there yet.  For now, if we 
are concerned about a two month turnaround time, we can simply respond "
Further consideration required" for each item.  That is a perfectly valid 
response under JTC1 rules.

-Rob