Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:tq1r95-ng2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
> Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
> either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had
> been bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy
> did not initially back up his claim with a reference.
But you understand now, presumably.
>> So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's
>> bribe successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian
>> vote, given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does
>> not represent a rejection of the proposals?
>
> What do you want me to say? Everything is possible.
Thanks for the clarification.
>>> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about
>>> improving the text.
>>
>> That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?
>
> Why?
For the reason that you snipped:
[quote]
>> Phrasing it like that makes it sound like they were collaborating
>> on a fictional novel, not engaging in scientific debate over the
>> integrity of a proposed standard.
[/quote]
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.
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.
>> Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as
>> easily be an act of protest against a standards proposition which
>> delegates disagree with?
>
> 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.
"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
Under these circumstances, I feel that anything other than an
affirmative "approve" vote should have counted as a rejection. Indeed,
frankly I think that the whole BRM should have been abandoned as being
out of order, and reconvened to take place over a longer time-frame. As
it is, the whole process appears to have been nothing but a farce.
>> After all, the participants in this process are NBs who voted
>> "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.
>
> And also the ones voting "Yes".
"2.3 Who /should/ attend?
NBs that voted “disapprove” in the 2 September ballot have a duty to
send a delegation to the BRM."
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q2-3
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?
>> And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those
>> participants' abstention is highly significant, since in many
>> instances it may signify an inability to adequately address the
>> overly complex and long-winded specifications of this proposed
>> standard. That /should/ have been taken into account when
>> considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this instance, I
>> believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and therefore a
>> rejection of the fast-track proposal.
>
> Ok - you are naturally entitled to believe what you want.
So I take it you /don't/ believe that?
Which part don't you agree with?
Is it:
a) The OOXML specifications are overly complex and long-winded?
b) Delegates were inadequately prepared to discuss a) above?
c) Abstentions were a manifestation of b) above?
d) OOXML should never have been accepted for fast-track approval?
>> Was this issue ever even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any
>> other time?
>
> 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? Did you ever
discuss the possibility of revoking the submission altogether?
>> Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
>> voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/
>> endorsing OOXML with that approval?
>
> I'll say it again: The BRM was not about approving/dissaproving DIS
> 29500. It was about fixing errors/flaws/inaccuracies in it.
Read my question again.
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.
>> If not, then what was the point of their participation?
>
> To improve the specification.
For the ultimate purpose of ratifying it.
>> Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
>> "improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a
>> forgone conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a
>> formality destined to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this
>> proposal.
>>
>> Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
>> bureaucratic formalities.
>
> Of course it was.
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.
>> It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
>> trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious
>> concerns over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any
>> of the more serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this
>> just a proof reading exercise?
>
> 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.
>> This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits
>> of replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an
>> issue of international interest, where the public have a right to
>> know what is discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.
>
> Yeah, well ... ISO doesn't work this way. It also didn't work this
> way when ODF was passed through the exact same commitee. I don't on
> principle see why it is suddenly a problem now. Are you by this
> saying that OOXML is more important to "the world" than ODF? I do not
> agree with this.
ODF was (and is) not encumbered by a plethora of technical and legal
issues, to anywhere near the same extent as OOXML, which is precisely
the reason for the rather distended OOXML ratification process to begin
with. It is also because of those issues that there is such public
interest in this process, not least of which because the specification's
architect seems to have gone to inordinate lengths to pervert the
standardisation process with corruption and bribery.
Under the circumstances, not only does the public have a right to know,
but indeed it should be a matter of priority that the public /does/ know
exactly what is going on, for the sake of the ISO's integrity, if
nothing else.
>> The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
>> national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day
>> on television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the
>> OOXML standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?
>>
>> I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
>> justification for it whatsoever.
>
> 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.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
00:53:03 up 73 days, 22:28, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.01
|
|
