Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Microsoft-occupied ISO Changes OOXML Voting Rules 'on the Fly' (Again!)

  • Subject: [News] Microsoft-occupied ISO Changes OOXML Voting Rules 'on the Fly' (Again!)
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:46:23 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Freelance
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
Changes to the SC 34/JTC1 rules for changing your OOXML vote

,----[ Quote ]
| Personally I’ve had enough with on-the-fly rule and process changes with this 
| whole thing, but if the increase in recipients is just to ensure that all 
| changes get counted, I’m fine with that.  
`----

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2135

New Rules for Changing Your Vote on OOXML

,----[ Quote ]
| It's so sad that no one knows in advance precisely how things are supposed to 
| go. It leaves you having to try every possible thing you can think of to make 
| sure you get it right. Did NBs get notices of this change, I wonder?  
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080319130708601


Related:

Project 29500

,----[ Quote ]
| The BRM can change whatever it wants can it? A briefing message from the 
| convenor of the BRM contributes to substancial irritation among the BRM 
| delegates that are not sacked yet.  
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-42701/project-29500


Which version of the JTC1 directives applies: v2.0 or v3.0?

,----[ Quote ]
| The 5 months ballot started on the 2nd of April 2007. JTC1 directives were 
| changed on the 5 of April 2007, in order to add a special chapter 13 wrote 
| with the help of ECMA's Jan van den Beld about the Fast Track procedure. So 
| which version applies to the current process? v2.0 or v3.0?   
| 
| [...]
| 
| Can you change the rules while a process is running?
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45222/which-version-of-the-jtc1-directives-applies:v2-0-or-v3-0


Alex Brown updates the BRM rules today

,----[ Quote ]
| Alex Brown has updated his blog post about the voting rules at the BRM. "This 
| was the wrong clause" he says. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| Some questions for the audience:
| 
| 1. Which one is the "normal JTC1 procedures"?
| 2. None of them mentions which majority should be taken. Simple majority of 
|    50%, or 66% of P-members? 
| 3. Where is the "letter" in the letter ballot?
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45179/alex-brown-updates-the-brm-rules-today


At the end: What we did in Geneva ?

,----[ Quote ]
| This person tried in saying that believes that we should not submit our 
| proposal that asked the mapping, since there was no time at the meeting (just 
| over three hours) to write the mapping document. We’ve said that our proposal 
| stemmed from the premise that the ECMA had this document because they 
| justifies “the need” of OOXML because it supports the binary documents legacy 
| and it is also stated that there are still things that can not be translated 
| (deprecated), they should have thoroughly studied this and at least have made 
| the mapping.       
| 
| I have never seen a person so nervous and ashamed in my life… He said that 
| Microsoft should have this mapping and if we want, we can ask it to Microsoft 
| but not ask it to ECMA. He said that ECMA was only responsible for creating 
| the new XML schema and who do not have this mapping documentation.   
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html


ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out

,----[ Quote ]
| So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior 
| meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they 
| have not, and I know they have not.  
| 
| So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare 
| claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and 
| they don't all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us 
| little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to 
| make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?    
| 
| Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the 
| BRM meeting?  
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html


Probe into votes on Microsoft standard

,----[ Quote ] 
| The European Commission is investigating the process under which a key 
| Microsoft document format could be adopted as an industry standard - a move 
| that would carry significant commercial benefits for the software company.  
| 
| Officials at the European Commission's competition directorate have written 
| to members of the International Organisation for Standardisation, asking how 
| they prepared for votes in September and later this month on acceptance of 
| Microsoft's OOXML document format as a worldwide standard. Without ISO 
| acceptance, Microsoft could stand to lose business, particularly with 
| government clients, some of which are becoming increasingly keen to use only 
| ISO-certified software.      
| 
| The ISO process has been widely criticised, however, with some members of 
| national standards' bodies accusing Microsoft and its rivals of attempting to 
| influence the vote.  
| 
| Tim Bray, a member of the Canadian national standards body, called the 
| procedure "complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit" in a recent blog posting. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| In addition, in several countries, a large number of Microsoft partners 
| joined the national standards organisations just ahead of a vote on the issue 
| in September.  
| 
| [...]
| 
| Microsoft said it openly encouraged its partners to participate in the ISO 
| process, but was not funding any third parties doing so. The company said it 
| would cooperate with the European Commission's inquiry.   
`----

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88e570a2-ea56-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


The Art of Being Mugged

,----[ Quote ]
| The four options presented were:
| 
|     * Option 1: Submitter's responses (Ecma's) are all automatically 
|       approved. 
|     * Option 2: Anything not discussed is not approved.
|     * Option 3: Neutral third-party (ITTF) decides which Ecma responses are 
|        accepted 
|     * Option 4: Voting (approve + disapprove) must be at least 9 votes. 
|       Abstentions not counted. 
| 
| We were told that these options are not in the Directives and that were are 
| given these choices because ITTF "needs to act in the best interests of the 
| IEC". I don't quite get it, but there appears to be some concern over what 
| the press would think if the BRM did not handle all of the comments. One NB 
| requested to speak and asked, "I wonder what the press would think about 
| arbitrarily changed procedures?". No response. I thought to myself, why 
| wasn't ITTF thinking about the 'best interests" of JTC1 when they allowed a 
| 6,045 page Fast Track submission, or ignored all those contradiction 
| submissions, or decided to schedule a 5-day BRM to handle 3,522 NB comments. 
| Isn't it a bit late to start worrying about what the press will think?         
| 
| We break for lunch.
| 
| After lunch and after more discussion, the meeting adopted a variation of 
| option 4, by removing the vote minimum. I believe in this vote the BRM and 
| ITTF exceeded its authority and violated the consensus principles described 
| in JTC1 Directives.   
`----

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index