Re: PAC: Newly revised language for CS 6

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> [eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com:]
> 
> | This may have already been mentioned (remember, I missed a call),
> | but I think "At the beginning of the next calendar quarter" is
> | ambiguous wrt "next".  I also have problems with "immediately
> | following".  May I suggest the following:
> |
> | "Thirty days shall be allowed for administrative processing of a
> | proposed standard. The last day of that period shall denote the
> | initial calendar quarter. The proposal shall be submitted to the
> | OASIS membership for review at the beginning of the calendar
> | quarter immediately following the initial calendar quarter. At the
> | beginning of the calendar quarter immediately following the review
> | calendar quarter, the proposal shall be submitted to the voting
> | members of OASIS, who shall have one month to return a ballot
> | approving or disapproving the proposal.
> 
> The intent was to group items going out for review onto quarter
> boundaries (Karl's point).  So starting the clock running at some
> arbitrary point won't do it; we did literally mean that this kind
> of thing will happen only every three months, at expected times.

I don't see how this starts the clock running at an arbitrary
point, but it may very well be that I'm just not following the
language. If you (and others) are sure the original language does
indeed set it up for things to happen only every three months, and
there is no doubt as to whether the first calendar starts at the
begining or the end of the administrative thirty days, I'm fine
with it.

> 
> It turns out, by the way, that "fiscal year" is already defined in
> the bylaws.
> 
> | [Note: "one month" is vague; I'd much prefer "30 days"]
> 
> I'll buy that.
> 
> Jon

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         fax:    (650) 786-5727