Wes Bucey said:
Thanks, Sidney for keeping us abreast of the news - just like the regular news - we don't have to like it, but we should know it.
Well, thank you Wes, for keeping all of these discussions honest.
I want to point out that a few new interpretations have been added to the "bank" @
http://www.tc176.org/Interpre.asp
Two that, in my opinion, are also debatable are interpretations RFI 034 and 043.
RFI 034 talks about having to monitor end user satisfaction, in addition to (direct) customer satisfaction, in a given scenario. While I agree that, from a business perspective, it makes a lot of sense to monitor end users, this is a case where an interpretation is specific to a scenario, which seems to contravene the spirit of the interpretation process.
RFI 043 explains that in some cases, in addition to complying with 7.3 for the product itself, 7.3 would be required for the design of the packaging for the product. Sure, if I am transporting a satellite worth US$200M to it's launching site, I want to make sure that the packaging for the spacecraft is adequately designed.
My problem is that, the way I see it, the process is contravening it's own rules. In the document available at
http://www.tc176.org/pdf/interp_flowchart.pdf, describing the process, it reads:
− [font=Arial,Arial]
be [/font]
[font=Arial,Arial]generic[/font][font=Arial,Arial]
, i.e. regardless of product, type and size of organization, country or situation; [/font]
[font=Arial,Arial]
it seems to me that, by creating interpretations that are "scenario specific", this Interpretation group is becoming a "judicial branch" in the process. Something that I don't believe ISO wants to get involved with.[/font]
[font=Arial,Arial][/font]
[font=Arial,Arial]
Since the number of interpretations is relatively small and few have been released in 2005, it might signify lack of support/interest.
[/font]