Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:28:56 -0700
Roger:
> > But that was closed: “SG21 has consensus against pursuing this paper any
> > further.”
Ville:
> We are in CD ballot, and we have NB comments the request of which is
> almost literally to reopen that decision.
Yes, and even besides that as soon as contracts went to EWG (in Tokyo I think) I've been regularly insisting to the SG21 and EWG chairs that the opinion that matters is in EWG, which as a larger group can have a different opinion from SG21. An SG stops owning (and being a gatekeeper of) a paper when it sends the paper onward to EWG.
So since Tokyo, for any change proposal to P2900 contracts (as opposed to future extensions), I've been regularly asking that the discussion must come to EWG, regardless of whether or not the chairs might choose additionally schedule any SG21 discussion to generate opinions to offer as advisory input to EWG.
> > But that was closed: “SG21 has consensus against pursuing this paper any
> > further.”
Ville:
> We are in CD ballot, and we have NB comments the request of which is
> almost literally to reopen that decision.
Yes, and even besides that as soon as contracts went to EWG (in Tokyo I think) I've been regularly insisting to the SG21 and EWG chairs that the opinion that matters is in EWG, which as a larger group can have a different opinion from SG21. An SG stops owning (and being a gatekeeper of) a paper when it sends the paper onward to EWG.
So since Tokyo, for any change proposal to P2900 contracts (as opposed to future extensions), I've been regularly asking that the discussion must come to EWG, regardless of whether or not the chairs might choose additionally schedule any SG21 discussion to generate opinions to offer as advisory input to EWG.
Received on 2025-10-23 22:28:58