"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-tim
>>>> e-to-sleep.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can
>>> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
>>> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>>
>> No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I
>> said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.
>
> 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"
> (I don't
> know for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you
> further assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.
Yes
> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
> OOXML,
India has not rejected OOXML by its vote. The BRM was not about
supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving the text.
>>> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
>>> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
>>> conducted in secret.
Sometimes people need to sit down and discuss stuff without having it
video-podcasted.
>> 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.
> I hope they also make their findings a matter of public record.
I think they will. The findings will eventually be a part of the JTC1
directives and they are publically available.
> Actually I was referring to your cynicism of Roy's assertions that
> Microsoft had attempted to buy the Indian vote.
Seriously - I just didn't get it.
>> I didn't know this was a members-only party but I saw someone linking
>> to my blog and just followed the link. I then saw some erronous
>> comments about OOXML and thought I'd help to clear things up.
>
> Please excuse my scepticism. As a long-time Usenet user, I keep
> forgetting about Google Groups, and its tendency to link people back
> to discussions in COLA, apparently out of the blue.
:o)
>>> If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence
>>> OOXML critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.
>>
>> I do not feel any need to promote OOXML. But I think we can all agree
>> on the benefits of having a qualified discussion.
>
> By all means.
:o)
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
