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-time-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 (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.
Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of OOXML,
of Roy's claims that Microsoft attempted to buy the Indian vote, is
without foundation, since you assert that they may not in fact have
rejected it at all.
Thank you for your clarification.
>> 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.
>
> 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."
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q2-4
And where is the public record of the minutes of these meetings?
>> Please feel free to share any information about the BRM which is
>> not a secret, starting with who you are and what your involvement
>> is in the process. Unless that is also a secret.
>
> I actually thought is was pretty clear - I am a member of the Danish
> national body participating in the BRM. I work for the Danish branch
> of an American company called CIBER. CIBER is a certified
> Microsoft-partner on whatever level (I can't remember).
Thank you.
To return the courtesy; I am a Red Hat and Fedora user and contributor.
I am now retired, although I used to work as an IT consultant in the
offshore Oil and Gas industry. I am not affiliated with Red Hat, nor any
other Linux vendor, beyond the fact of my voluntary contributions.
>> One fact in particular that I would like some clarification on, is
>> how anyone could reasonably be expected to review the comments from
>> a 6000 page specification in just five days.
>
> Well - that was exactly the dilemma.
Yes, but what was the /result/, in terms of how the process was conducted?
>> It /isn't/ possible to do so, hence the secrecy, because if the
>> manner in which "consensus" was /actually/ reached in such debate
>> was widely known, there would be a public enquiry and corruption
>> charges.
>
> So how do you think consensus was reached?
Without press coverage, or impartial accounts from members of the
public, it is quite impossible to say. Hence my concerns with respect to
the covert nature of those proceedings.
>> At the very least, and by your own admission, the processes "could
>> both do with a bit of - ahem - improving".
>
> You are completely correct on this. I have no idea what to have done
> to the processes, but I hope they will figure it out,
I hope they also make their findings a matter of public record.
>> I find it odd that you should question the veracity of those
>> criticise the BRM. What sort of reaction should you expect from
>> those who are kept in the dark about these covert proceedings?
>> Isn't speculation a natural reaction, given the blanket of secrecy?
>>
>>
>
> I do not question the "veracity" (whatever that means)
"Accuracy and truthfulness".
> of the critics. I am just pointing out that I do not agree that e.g.
> an "abstain"-vote can generally be thought as a "not positive" vote.
> "Abstain" is "Abstain".
Actually I was referring to your cynicism of Roy's assertions that
Microsoft had attempted to buy the Indian vote.
With regards to whether or not an abstention is tantamount to a
rejection, I agree that it is not. However, as I stated before, it is
entirely unreasonable to expect comments on a 6000 page specification to
be fully debated within a 5 day time-frame. Therefore it is my
contention that this process was unfairly and perhaps even deliberately
weighted in favour of seeking approval, based on abstentions that were
calculated to be likely, given the complexity of the process. The fact
that this arguable corruption of the process may not have succeeded,
does not alter the possibility that it was attempted.
Indeed, I will go as far as to say that Microsoft planned this tactic
from the very beginning, which is the very reason for the distended
nature of the OOXML specifications to begin with. Creating an impossibly
large and technical specification document, then seeking fast-track
approval, seem like an obviously devious tactic to me.
For this reason, I believe that the submission of OOXML for fast-track
approval should have been rejected from the outset, but the continued
endorsement of this submission, by all parties concerned, seems like
more than a mere error in judgement ... it clearly seems to be
corruption of the standards process.
As someone who might very well be affected by the outcome of that
process (potentially having to endure years of non-interoperable
documents), it is naturally in my interest to seek answers and remedies
to my concerns. Hence this discussion.
>> Also, may I ask what someone in your position is doing in the Linux
>> Advocacy group? I only ask this because it seems strange that
>> someone who is obviously as busy as you are promoting OOXML, should
>> choose to spend his time hunting for negative opinions of OOXML
>> and the BRM in what is, comparatively speaking, an obscure section
>> of the Internet.
>
> You are correct - it is an abscure section of the internet - but
> nonetheless a section I have enjoyed using through-out the years.
>
> :o)
>
> 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.
>> 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.
--
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
03:03:22 up 72 days, 39 min, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
|
|
