Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely
>> negative votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions
>
> No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said
> that I do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as
> "against a change to the text"
So do you, or do you not, think that figures for the Indian vote
represent a rejection of those changes?
>> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
>> OOXML,
>
> India has not rejected OOXML by its vote.
You snipped the part where I speculated that you thought India had not
in fact rejected it.
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?
> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving
> the text.
That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?
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.
Was this process about furthering the cause of ratifying OOXML or not?
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? After all, the participants in this process are NBs who
voted "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.
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. Was this issue ever
even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any other time?
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? If not, then what was the point of their
participation?
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.
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?
If that's all it was, then why the shroud of secrecy?
> Sometimes people need to sit down and discuss stuff without having it
> video-podcasted.
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.
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.
>>> It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an
>>> open discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is
>>> nothing secret about that.
>> Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of
>> the public and the Press?
>>
>> "2.4 Can press or observers attend? No, press and observers may
>> not attend, and the meeting may not be recorded or broadcast in any
>> way."
>
> Your assertion is that all meetings in ISO should be subject to
> public access and the press. I do not agree with that.
This was not /just another/ meeting, this was a very high profile event
that could potentially affect the outcome of document interoperability
for years to come. That is very much in the public interest, and
/should/ have been open to public scrutiny. Again, as I stated, the fact
that it was /not/ is deeply suspicious, and leaves a question-mark over
the integrity of the ISO; the BRM participants; the BRM process itself;
the implications for the final outcome of the OOXML fast-track
proposition; and indeed the credibility of the proposed OOXML standard
itself, including its architects and the company that pays them.
--
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
16:38:59 up 72 days, 14:14, 4 users, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.01
|
|
