ISO rules and the 29 of March
,----[ Quote ]
| Groklaw told "New rules for changing your vote on OOXML. Yup. Like we didn't
| expect that. I know you don't want your votes to end up ignored, so here's
| what I think you have to do by March 29". Well spoken. Agreement for
| disapproval is not enough, your national body needs to vote correctly or the
| specification might get closer to a pivotal approval. Don't forget that to
| continue with a BRM for a text with 2300 comments had been their idea -- and
| to go fast-track with 19 difficulties.
|
| [...]
|
| Yes, it is okay for ISO to approve a broken standard because you didn't
| follow their formalities. Or that Sweden gets no vote because of usances on
| the national level which were dissolved by submitting no vote in the
| September ballot (non-vote is different from an abstention and kicked Sweden
| out of the process!)
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48867/iso-rules-and-the-29-of-march
The top ISO escapee said that ISO is becoming "laughing stock" in the IT
circles. It has only gotten worse since had left. He also called
it "standardisation by corporation". People are rightly concerned and
distinguished academics too are complaining:
Open letter to ISO Standards Committee
,----[ Quote ]
| From: Peter Drummond <>
| To: intsect@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:47:55 +1000
| Subject: OOXML ISO proposal
|
| Dear ISO Standards Committee -
|
| as Australia's IUPAP representative for computational physics, and
| Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, I would like to make the
| strongest possible objection to the proposal that the OOXML
| specification be adopted by the ISO. Australia should vote to reject
| this proposal.
|
| This proposal is along the lines that ‘We wish to propose an alternative
| standard for measurement called the Microsoft metre, which equals
| 3.14159 standard metres, except on leap years, when it equals 2.71828
| standard metres’. Such a ridiculous proposal is unacceptable.
|
| The simple point here is that there is an existing international
| standard called the ODF, just as we have an existing international
| standard for length (the meter), time (the second) and weight (the
| kilogram). The entire point of having a standard is the uniqueness of
| the standard!
|
| To have two completely incompatible standards is not necessary, and
| would lead to the destruction of the standardization process. In the
| long run, this is less efficient, increases costs, and greatly reduces
| the chances of archival documents being readable in the distant future.
|
| If a corporation or individual wishes to make technical improvements to
| a standard like ODF, there are channels and procedures for this. It is
| totally counterproductive and foolish to try and create a second
| incompatible standard, purely to afford competitive advantages to one
| company.
|
| Finally, I haven't even mentioned the numerous technical problems to the
| OOXML proposal. This is so complex and poorly specified that there
| appears to be no fully compliant implementation in existence now, nor
| any means to verify compliance. To avoid embarrassment, please vote NO.
|
| Yours sincerely,
|
| Peter D Drummond, FAA,
| Professor of Theoretical Physics,
| University of Queensland.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48899/open-letter-to-iso-standards-committee
Related:
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
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
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
|
|
