"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:t4ju95-ojr.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> I understand that "improving the text" may have been the formal
> bureaucratic jargon for this process, but you are nonetheless greatly
> understating the significance of this meeting, by continually trying
> to distance delegates' participation from their opinions, with
> platitudes.
To be clear - this was a very important meeting indeed. I am not trying
to say otherwise. All I am saying is that it was not about approving DIS
29500.
> Regardless of the specific purpose of any given meeting, any vote
> which furthers the successful ratification of OOXML is an idealogical
> "vote" in its favour.
Aaah - I think we finally see why we dissagree. It is here important to
know that even those countries that have strong oppositions on OOXML all
participated constructively in the sessions and out-of-meeting debates.
They did not just sit on their hands and protest. They actively
participated in improving the text.
>> Yes - and it could be interpreted the other way. I am not saying that
>> either is the truth for a specific comment. I am saying that only
>> focusing on a single interpretation as representing the only truth is
>> wrong (since there are other interpretations).
>
> In any other context, I might agree, but the BRM violated so many of
> the principles of democratic debate that I feel this is an exception.
ok :o)
> "However, 80%+ of the resolutions of the BRM were resolved by a
> ballot, without discussion, without taking into account any dissenting
> views, without reconciling any arguments. Indeed, there was not any
> opportunity to even raise an objection to an issue decided by the
> ballot. Many of the issues were decided in 6-5 or 7-6 split votes,
> with no discussion. How can that be said to be a consensus? This is an
> utter failure to follow the cardinal principles of JTC1 process."
>
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html
Yeah well, Robbie is clearly an impartisan (impartial?) (pardon my
English) source of information. Noone has said that there was consensus
on the remaining dispositions. That is the whole point.
As I wrote on my blog, the BRM decided to do something on the remaining
dispositions. The BRM decided to vote on each and every single one of
them and no country opposed this decision.
> Certainly the "approve" voters are also listed under the "who /may/
> attend" category, but then one wonders exactly /why/ they would need
> to, since their comments have presumably already been resolved.
>
> Were there, in fact, any delegates present who had voted approve in
> the 2nd of September ballot?
>
> Were you one of them?
Seriously - you should do your homework. Denmark - and thereby I - voted
"No" in September. I fully support this vote.
>> As reported elsewhere we spent the better part of a whole day
>> debating precicely the ballot itself, the choices and their meaning.
>
> But did you specifically discuss the issue of the large and complex
> specifications precluding OOXML from fast-track approval?
No - that was not the purpose of the meeting.
> Did you ever
> discuss the possibility of revoking the submission altogether?
No - that was not the purpose of the meeting
> Let me rephrase it. Would you say that merely /participating/ in the
> BRM, after having already voted "disapprove" on the 2nd of September,
> was indicative of a /desire/ to assist the process of ultimately
> ratifying the OOXML standard? In other words, any action taken to
> further the cause of OOXML represents a desire to ratify it ... an
> endorsement, if you will. Regardless of the specific purpose of any
> individual meeting or resolution.
Well, the Danish vote was "No" but Denmark also indicated that should the
168 comments be addressed, we'd look into our vote again. Several
countries had similar phrasing.
>>> If not, then what was the point of their participation?
>>
>> To improve the specification.
>
> For the ultimate purpose of ratifying it.
Well, if that is your take on it.
> Well nothing you have stated so far seems to support that, and indeed
> according to Rob Weir the whole process was just an exercise in going
> through the motions.
The BRM was about fixing errors in the DIS - ranging from date formats to
bitfields to replacing "should" with "shall" etc.
>> The reason why we managed to fix such a small number of concrete
>> Responses was indeed that we spent a lot of time debating the "real",
>> big issues as interoperability, conformance, scope, deprecation,
>> bitmasks, date-systems, password-hashing, content embedding,
>> localization (support for bidirectional text), measurement of
>> lengths, size etc, etc etc.
>
> I find it very hard to believe that so many highly technical issues
> were effectively resolved in such a short time frame.
Because of the qualified people in the room?
:o)
>> I am not trying as much to justify it - I am simply saying that it's
>> just the way it is.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to just shrug my shoulders and walk away.
I do not think anyone is trying to take that right away from you.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
