[MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to postpone the issuance of the CDAM2 ballot (was RE: New AHG mandates and other news!)

[Vladimir Levantovsky]

Hi Hin-Tak, 

Thank you for your comment, and yes - “no” in my sentence implied absence, or lack of comments.

And , while I’d agree that “no x and y” may not make much sense - it is not a logical equivalent of “no x _or_ y”. Sorry :-)

(For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to treat your comment as “no objections”.)

Thank you,
Vlad

> On Jun 14, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> 
> By this sentence, 
> "As usual, no comments or objections will be treated as silent approval of the proposal..."
> 
> I think you mean
> "As usual, a lack of comments or objections will be treated as silent approval of the proposal..."
> 
> or
> "As usual, the absence of comments or objections will be treated as silent approval of the proposal..."
> 
> Because "no x and y..." could be read and understood alternately as "none of x or y...", which don't make sense. :-). Sorry... 
> 
> Regards,
> Hin-Tak
> 
> 
> On Friday, 11 June 2021, 23:01:16 BST, Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear AHG members,
>  
> Like I mentioned in my earlier emails announcing new AHG mandates (see below), our first mandate is to review and discuss the text of the Committee Draft amendment (CDAM2). There is a healthy debate happening on GitHub among spec contributors / collaborators and implementers (see  https://github.com/MPEGGroup/OpenFontFormat/issues/47 for details), which would likely result in a substantial number of changes to be proposed.
>  
> According to the ISO Directives, Working Groups are prohibited from conducting the discussions of documents that are currently balloted. However, as of right now, the OFF CDAM2 ballot has not yet been issued, which gives us a unique opportunity to delay the issuance of the ballot until after the next WG3 (MPEG Systems) meeting in July (July 12-18), and to use this opportunity to continue the discussion and update the text of the CDAM2 document prior to balloting. If we decide to do so, we’d need to communicate our decision to the parent subcommittee (SC29), and then recommend that the WG3 would adopt a new resolution to issue a regular, 2-months CDAM2 ballot. The results of that ballot (if issued in the end of July) would be readily available by the next WG3 meeting scheduled in mid-October, so the delay in issuing the ballot _at this time_ will not in any way affect the overall timeline of the AMD2 project.
>  
> I propose that we should ask SC29 to delay the OFF AMD2 ballot giving us another opportunity to discuss and review the future proposed changes during the WG3 July meeting. If you have any objections or concerns regarding this proposal, please respond to this email by June 15th. As usual, no comments or objections will be treated as silent approval of the proposal to delay the ballot, and I will communicate our desire to postpone the issuance of the AMD2 ballot to SC29.
>  
> Thank you,
> Vladimir
>