SC22/WG20 N904

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A.  (ANSI)
 
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N3365
 
TITLE:
Summary of Voting on SC 22 N 3330, Letter Ballot on Revision of ISO/IEC TR
10176 - Guidelines for the Preparation of Programming Language Standards

DATE ASSIGNED:
2002-01-17
 
SOURCE:
SC 22 Secretariat

BACKWARD POINTER:
N/A
 
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Meeting Announcement

PROJECT NUMBER:
1.22.13
 
STATUS:
Per the results of this ballot, Kona Resolution 01-22 is approved.  The
results of this ballot are forwarded to SC 22/WG 20 for preparation of the
appropriate NWI proposal.

ACTION IDENTIFIER:
ACT
 
DUE DATE:
  
DISTRIBUTION:
Text

CROSS REFERENCE:
SC 22 N3330
 
DISTRIBUTION FORM:
Def
 
Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
Matt Deane
ANSI
25 West 43rd Street
New York, NY  10036
Telephone:  (212) 642-4992
Fax:             (212) 840-2298
Email:  mdeane@ansi.org

___end cover page, beginning of summary of voting________


SUMMARY OF VOTING ON


Letter Ballot Reference No:  SC22 N3330
Circulated by:               JTC 1/SC22
Circulation Date:            2001-10-05
Closing Date:                2002-01-07

SUBJECT:  Summary of Voting on SC 22 N 3330, Letter Ballot on Revision of
ISO/IEC TR 10176 - Guidelines for the Preparation of Programming Language
Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following responses have been received on the subject of revision:


"P" Members supporting the revision of this project

11 (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Republic of
Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, UK, USA)

"P" Members supporting the revision of this project with comments


-        

"P" Members not supporting the revision of this project

1 (Netherlands)

"P" Members abstaining                    

1 (France)

"P" Members not voting                    

10 (Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Ireland, DPR of Korea,
Slovenia, Ukraine)

Note:  O-member Sweden supports revision.

___________ end of summary, beginning on NB comments _____________

Netherlands
No, we would like to make a proposal that there will be an intarisation at
the plenary meeting,  if there is a need for this revision.