Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the Indian
> vote yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a comment on
> Brian Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the responses from
> ECMA.
>
> [0]
> 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.'?
So which is it? Do you endorse those figure or not?
As for the correlation between the Indian vote and Microsoft's bribe,
well there's no mystery there. The Vole's bribe failed, obviously. That
doesn't mean they didn't make that bribe, nor does it mean that
Microsoft are somehow absolved of corruption merely because their
underhand tactics were unsuccessful.
Is a bank robber any less of a bank robber merely because he is caught?
Of course the /direct/ correlation is merely a question of speculation,
but of course there are very strong inferences. There is a point at
which a series of events is no longer a coincidence, but actually a
predictable pattern.
Microsoft's corruption in their aggressive attempts to have OOXML
ratified is well documented, and in some cases actually proven (Sweden,
for example). But there is so much secrecy surrounding both the proposed
standard; the underlying motives; and the standards process itself,
that it is often very difficult to qualify any corruption claims
conclusively - a fact that Microsoft no doubt depends on.
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. Or is that a secret too?
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.
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.
I'd have a hypothesis; would you like to hear it?
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.
At the very least, and by your own admission, the processes "could both
do with a bit of - ahem - improving".
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?
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.
If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence OOXML
critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.
--
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
22:00:39 up 71 days, 19:36, 4 users, load average: 0.27, 0.06, 0.03
|
|
