TC2 Draft 4 Aardvark Report Austin-193 Page 1 of 1 Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. Sep 26, 2003 Aardvark Summary Table ______________________ ERN 1 Accept as marked _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 1 gwc@opengroup.org Bug in TC2-d4 pax (rdvk# 1) [gwc xcu-tc2-d4-26] Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:05:56 +0100 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The committee has worked with the submitter to revise the change request to be acceptable. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 3312 Section: XCU/TC2/D4/26 Problem: The committee maintenance procedures (Austin/112r1) state: "The following are the criteria for a Technical Corrigenda (TC) item: a. [...] b. It should be non-controversial" Change number XCU/TC2/D4/26 resulting from XCU ERN 10 is highly controversial, and therefore does not meet the criteria for a TC item. There was considerable opposition to this change when it was discussed on the Austin Group mailing list. It ended with the ORs voting to accept the change. The very fact that it needed an OR vote demonstrates that it is controversial. Action: Remove XCU/TC2/D4/26 from the TC2 draft and send XCU ERN 10 down the interpretations track instead. N.B. If XCU/TC2/D4/26 is not removed, then the rationale given at line 3323 "This clarifies the wording" should be altered. The wording change is not a clarification, it is a major change to the requirements of the standard.