On Friday 13 February 2004 11:07, Andrew Josey wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:43am in "Re: Minutes of the F", Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> > Yes, I understand. Maybe we should be a little more upfront with ISO
> > next time.
>
> The only time saving we could have made was to gamble that the
> IEEE recirculation would have no negative comments, and submit to ISO
> in parallel on November 19 (cf actual date of December 3).
> So yes, in theory we could have gained 14 days, but the
> delay Dec 3 thru Jan 14 was 42 days.
>
> -----
I have known of mysterious delays in the ISO office that went on for months
(e.g. publishing the latest C++ standard, to pick a recent one).
I wish I knew what could be done about it. I think it's good that ISO
committees take time to deliberate and establish a consensus before rushing a
standard to adoption (followed immediately by urgent revision cycles). I can
understand that national body experts need time to study a document and
prepare informed comments on it. What I don't understand is why the purely
mechanical aspects of the workflow should take so long.<sigh>
Lois
|