"[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.
> 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.
> 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).
> 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.
> 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?
> 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 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) 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".
> 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.
> 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.
?
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
