Interview with Vint Cerf, by Sean Daly
,----[ Quote ]
| Cerf: We saw that walled gardens are NOT what users want. They want freedom
| to interact with everyone in convenient and standards-compliant ways. I do
| not think we will see walled gardens of the previous kind, but I do worry
| when global standards are adopted that are likely to be implementable by only
| one vendor. When global standards processes are overly influenced by
| proprietary interests, they cease to facilitate interoperability and
| competitive implementation. I do worry when standards are adopted that have
| potential encumbrances or that erode the openness that has been a hallmark of
| the Internet since its origins.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080303140032154
The BRM made things even worse for MS
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft tries to blame all negative criticism on fanaticism, covert
| influence from IBM and an unreasonable anti-Microsoft attitude. I would be
| more inclined towards regarding a blank approval without comments as a sign
| of corruption or gross incompetence.
|
| Where is it most likely that you will find corruption and a lack of
| experience: in long standing P-members, or in small newcomers without even a
| proper national standards committee?
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-44354/the-brm-made-things-even-worse-for-ms
Quite a list they've got there:
Irregularities
http://www.noooxml.org/irregularities
Related:
The OOXML BRM: Secrets and statistics
,----[ Quote ]
| Of all the “condensed” resolutions from ECMA, approximately 82% were not
| discussed at all, including counter proposals for these same issues. That
| leaves about 18% that were either discussed and voted on or else voted on
| early in batch. (I’m fine with batch votes for minor typographical fixes.)
|
| What an utter and predictable embarrassment.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2090
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
|
|
