Clearly there is a lot of stuff that we need to understand more about
relative to our liaison role with ISO. Fortunately, that is what we have a
liaison officer (listen up Chris ;-) ) to do.



However, from the comments below, I think I understand that we probably
don't need to change the chart now. Is that correct?



Mark



Mark McCall (Anteon Corp.)
Warfighter Readiness Research Division
Air Force Research Laboratory
6030 S. Kent St. Bldg 561
Mesa, AZ 85212

(480) 988-6561 x231
DSN 474-6231

Caution: This message may contain competitive, sensitive or other non-public
information not intended for disclosure outside official government
channels. Do not disseminate this message without the approval of the
undersigned's office. If you received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

-----Original Message-----
From: SISO-SAC: Tim Gifford
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: SISO Overview (Version 0.9)



wbquoteFrom: "Tim Gifford" ([log in to unmask]
)

*** This message was generated from SISO-SAC ***

Mark,

Okay. Good to know I won't get flamed, at least not for that message.

As far as ISO/IEC is concerned, there is no reason that SISO, as a liaison
organization, could not propose one of its standards to become a ISO/IEC
standard or submit other work for consideration as technical reports related
to particular standards. So, the arrows coming from the sponsor
organization to SISO and from the Study Group and then to ISO/IEC is
certainly something that may be done. Whether such is the desire of SISO is
another matter and may not be desirable as you have indicated.

I don't know much about future interactions at this point except that the
SEDRIS-related standards will continue to evolve through the registration
and amendment process. I would expect eventually that a PSG will do the
work to submit items to the registries on behalf of SISO in its role as a
Sponsoring Authority. Note that this is not yet in effect but the process
is in the works to make all Category C liaisons Sponsoring Authorities so
they may submit items directly to the Registration Authority. I would
expect if a PSG identifies a need to amend a ISO/IEC standard, it will
accomplish work to make the amendment happen. This could include drafting
of proposed text and submitting for consideration by the project editor for
that standard. For that matter, a project editor could come from the PSG.
I am writing this because such is possible. This may not be a direction in
which SISO wants to go.

I hope this helps.

Tim Gifford
Secretariat
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24/WG 8
Environmental Representation
+1.407.677.0153 ext. 238
fax +1.407.678.1854
[log in to unmask]
http://wg8.sedris.org

_____

From: SISO-SAC: James McCall
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:24 PM
To: Recipients of 'SISO-SAC' suppressed
Subject: RE: SISO Overview (Version 0.9)


From: "James McCall" ([log in to unmask])

*** This message was generated from SISO-SAC ***


Tim,



You are not violating ROE and I am happy to get your feedback.

The connection with SC 24 is the only connection that I know of at the time.
I was building the chart as a more general look based on what I had heard
discussed on EDCS. Help us with our understanding. Here is how I
envisioned the chart being briefed.

SISO and the SAC also have supported the development of ISO standards,
primarily with respect to environmental standards. While we originally
established a Product Development Group, we have come to realize that this
is probably not the best way to interact on ISO standards. In the ISO case,
the overall responsibility for the development, balloting, and support of a
proposed ISO standard is with the ISO Technical Committee. Since the SISO
interaction is primarily as technical support to the ISO Technical
Committee, we believe that the actual organization should be less structured
than a PDG - and probably should be a Standing Study Group during
development and a Product Support Group after the standard is approved.
Even then, the specific group will need to be flexible in applying the SISO
procedures to this support.

After thinking through this, I think we probably need to remove the arrow
from the sponsor and maybe from the Study Group to the middle picture. What
do you think based on your experience and potential future interactions?

Mark

Mark McCall (Anteon Corp.)
Warfighter Readiness Research Division
Air Force Research Laboratory
6030 S. Kent St. Bldg 561
Mesa, AZ 85212

(480) 988-6561 x231
DSN 474-6231

Caution: This message may contain competitive, sensitive or other non-public
information not intended for disclosure outside official government
channels. Do not disseminate this message without the approval of the
undersigned's office. If you received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.





To reply:[log in to unmask]
(Version 0.9)>
To start a new topic:[log in to unmask]
To view discussion: http://discussions.sisostds.org/default.asp?boardid=2


id1> &action=9&read@003&fid1
To (un)subscribe:[log in to unmask] with the
word unsubscribe in the message body.

SISO: http://www.sisostds.org/





To reply:[log in to unmask]
w%20(Version%200.9)>
To start a new topic:[log in to unmask]

To view discussion: http://discussions.sisostds.org/default.asp?boardid=2
id1> &action=9&read@003&fid1
To (un)subscribe:[log in to unmask]
with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.

SISO: http://www.sisostds.org/

wbendquote



To unsubscribe from the SISO-SAC list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SISO-SAC