>I don't think that discussing an important issue is a "waste" of time.
>Especially, when the WG12 already recommended "Technical change needed"
I think this statement is ambiguous and needs clarification.
WG12 never formally recommended to make a technical change there, or elsewhere.
(Actually, this is not even on the agenda now, since
what is targeted is a corrigendum, not an amendment).
What a task force within WG12 once said is that from the technical
point of view, if the requested concern were to be answered positively
then this would imply a technical change.
So please don't confuse both issues there. There has been no a priori resolution
to make any change. Discussing potential changes is useful and a source of
progress. On another hand, it also consumes time. If the MTF wants to
focus its meeting, it might consider focusing its discussion on clarifications
(as opposed to changes), since the target is a corrigendum document anyway.
It seems to me clarifications could be easily accepted, while changes might
lead to long discussions and thereby ruin the whole process.
Best regards
Xavier