Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Brazilian Delegation Spills the Beans on the OOXML BRM, ISO Shamed

  • Subject: [News] Brazilian Delegation Spills the Beans on the OOXML BRM, ISO Shamed
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:01:25 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Freelance
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
At the end: What we did in Geneva ?

,----[ Quote ]
| This person tried in saying that believes that we should not submit our 
| proposal that asked the mapping, since there was no time at the meeting (just 
| over three hours) to write the mapping document. We’ve said that our proposal 
| stemmed from the premise that the ECMA had this document because they 
| justifies “the need” of OOXML because it supports the binary documents legacy 
| and it is also stated that there are still things that can not be translated 
| (deprecated), they should have thoroughly studied this and at least have made 
| the mapping.       
| 
| I have never seen a person so nervous and ashamed in my life… He said that 
| Microsoft should have this mapping and if we want, we can ask it to Microsoft 
| but not ask it to ECMA. He said that ECMA was only responsible for creating 
| the new XML schema and who do not have this mapping documentation.   
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html

More corruption. Join the party...

ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out

,----[ Quote ]
| So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior 
| meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they 
| have not, and I know they have not.  
| 
| So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare 
| claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and 
| they don't all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us 
| little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to 
| make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?    
| 
| Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the 
| BRM meeting?  
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html

The EU Commission is watching indeed.


Yesterday:

Probe into votes on Microsoft standard

,----[ Quote ] 
| The European Commission is investigating the process under which a key 
| Microsoft document format could be adopted as an industry standard - a move 
| that would carry significant commercial benefits for the software company.  
| 
| Officials at the European Commission's competition directorate have written 
| to members of the International Organisation for Standardisation, asking how 
| they prepared for votes in September and later this month on acceptance of 
| Microsoft's OOXML document format as a worldwide standard. Without ISO 
| acceptance, Microsoft could stand to lose business, particularly with 
| government clients, some of which are becoming increasingly keen to use only 
| ISO-certified software.      
| 
| The ISO process has been widely criticised, however, with some members of 
| national standards' bodies accusing Microsoft and its rivals of attempting to 
| influence the vote.  
| 
| Tim Bray, a member of the Canadian national standards body, called the 
| procedure "complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit" in a recent blog posting. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| In addition, in several countries, a large number of Microsoft partners 
| joined the national standards organisations just ahead of a vote on the issue 
| in September.  
| 
| [...]
| 
| Microsoft said it openly encouraged its partners to participate in the ISO 
| process, but was not funding any third parties doing so. The company said it 
| would cooperate with the European Commission's inquiry.   
`----

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88e570a2-ea56-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Last week:

The Art of Being Mugged

,----[ Quote ]
| The four options presented were:
| 
|     * Option 1: Submitter's responses (Ecma's) are all automatically 
|       approved. 
|     * Option 2: Anything not discussed is not approved.
|     * Option 3: Neutral third-party (ITTF) decides which Ecma responses are 
|        accepted 
|     * Option 4: Voting (approve + disapprove) must be at least 9 votes. 
|       Abstentions not counted. 
| 
| We were told that these options are not in the Directives and that were are 
| given these choices because ITTF "needs to act in the best interests of the 
| IEC". I don't quite get it, but there appears to be some concern over what 
| the press would think if the BRM did not handle all of the comments. One NB 
| requested to speak and asked, "I wonder what the press would think about 
| arbitrarily changed procedures?". No response. I thought to myself, why 
| wasn't ITTF thinking about the 'best interests" of JTC1 when they allowed a 
| 6,045 page Fast Track submission, or ignored all those contradiction 
| submissions, or decided to schedule a 5-day BRM to handle 3,522 NB comments. 
| Isn't it a bit late to start worrying about what the press will think?         
| 
| We break for lunch.
| 
| After lunch and after more discussion, the meeting adopted a variation of 
| option 4, by removing the vote minimum. I believe in this vote the BRM and 
| ITTF exceeded its authority and violated the consensus principles described 
| in JTC1 Directives.   
`----

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index