____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 March 2008 13:42 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 March 2008 09:35 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Some clarifications on the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| The contrast with OOXML is sharp, and this brings us to another issue of
>>>>| contention. The Greek workgroup on OOXML had been handed only the Ecma
>>>>| Responses for Greece. It was at the BRM when we found out that we should
>>>>| have studied all responses, not only those for Greece. It is not clear if
>>>>| this is an error by Ecma or by the Greek NB, but, in both cases, we did
>>>>| not have the time to study one thousand responses, so there would have
>>>>| been no difference. In fact, even the 80 responses that Greece studied,
>>>>| we did not study at the level of scrutiny that is required when you
>>>>| inspect a standard. There was no time for that. What we did was glance
>>>>| through, and make fast decisions based on what seems right at a quick
>>>>| glance.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://elot.ece.ntua.gr/te48/ooxml/brm-clarifications
>>>
>>> I know that standardisation is a public service, but I think in a case
>>> like this, where a single company is quite clearly pushing their own
>>> agenda, knowingly against an existing standard which we've already paid
>>> for (ODF), then that company should have to pay for the work involved.
>>>
>>> Currently, we have delegates from companies and governments all over the
>>> world, the cost must be in the millions, with the singular purpose of
>>> pushing through a clearly immature specification into an environment
>>> where there is already a superior one.
>>>
>>> This is a abuse of the system, and a very expensive one. It seems to be
>>> akin to the legal viewpoint around "contempt of court". This appears to
>>> be "contempt of ISO" and should be handled in a similar way.
>>
>> Europe will probably have Microsoft fine for this, but it might take time
>> for ISO to recover (ECMA is already ruined). Bush, as usual, doesn't give a
>> damn... "is OXML like teh google on the internets?"
>>
>
> ISO really needs to reconsider its processes. Equally, we really *must*
> only permit standards which are not patent encumbered; the decision to
> move away from that, pushed by the US, was an awful one.
You ought to see the shots people take at ISO in FOSS or Linux forums at the
moment. What a joke it has become. ISO isn't quite what it used to be.
Microsoft dethroned or scared away the core people, just like it always does
(bullying, manipulation, intimidation). I can fetch you the links if you are
interested. it would make your blood boil.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Brazil spans 47.8% of S. America
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 444520k used, 70980k free, 5676k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
