-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ISO/IEC JTC1 Revises Directives, Addresses OOXML Abuses
,----[ Quote ]
| First, we see the elimination of the
| contradiction phase in Fast Track
| processing. If you recall, under previous
| rules, a Fast Track begin with a 30-day NB
| review period, sometimes called the
| âcontradiction periodâ, where NBs were
| invited to raise objections if they think
| the Fast Track proposal contradicts an
| existing ISO or IEC standard. This was
| followed by a 5-month ballot. The
| problem was that the word âcontradictionâ
| was not defined, leading to various
| irreconcilable interpretations. In the
| case of OOXML 20 JTC1 National Bodies
| (NBs) raised contradictions. Evidently,
| the passage of time has lead to no
| progress on defining what exactly a
| contradiction is, so the contradiction
| period has been eliminated entirely.
| Instead, looking for âevident
| contradictionsâ (still undefined) is given
| to JTC1 administrative staff, which is the
| surest way of guaranteeing that we never
| hear of contradictions again. The Fast
| Track DIS ballot remains at 5-months, so
| net-net this accelerates processing by one
| month.
|
| Next, we see some clarification around how
| NBs should vote on Fast Tracks. Back,
| during the OOXML ballot, Microsoft made a
| huge effort to convince NBs to vote âYes
| with commentsâ if they found serious flaws
| in the text, with the promise that they
| would all be addressed at the BRM. Well,
| we now know that this was a big lie. Very
| few issues were actually discussed and
| resolved at the BRM. And most of them
| were addressed by merely saying, âSorry,
| no changeâ. At the time I argued that the
| rules were quite clear, that disapproval
| should be voiced by a âNo, with commentsâ
| vote. Well, we now see another small
| slice of vindication.
|
| [...]
|
| Another change is that if the DIS ballot
| fails to get sufficient votes, meaning
| less than 2/3 approval of ISO/IEC JTC1 P-
| members, or more than 25% disapproval
| overall, the proposal dies at that point.
| It doesnât go on to the BRM. Game over.
| If this rule had been in place back in
| 2007, OOXML would not be an ISO standard
| today.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/iso-iec-jtc1-revises-directives.html
"ISO is dead for software standards. Do you need an official funeral?"
--Benjamin Henrion, FFII president
Recent:
OpenXML: What I havenât told yet about the BRM
,----[ Quote ]
| Why Alex Brown, even knowing the importance
| of the issue, shamelessly manipulated the
| meeting to prevent the proposal presentation
| by Brazil ?
|
| I think many of these questions will stay
| unanswered, but Iâd really like to
| understand what motivated the Alex Brown to
| change in such an outrageous way the course
| (and outcome) of OpenXML in ISO.
|
| Since this meeting ended in Geneva, I
| havenât spent even one day of my life
| without wondering: What would have happened
| if we had presented our proposal, and what
| motivated Alex Brown to manipulate in such a
| way that meeting?
|
| Now that everyone knows the âbackstageâ of
| Alex Brownâs decision, preventing Brazil to
| present the binary mapping proposal of the
| last BRM day, a few comments are pertinent.
|
| Reviewing everything that happened during
| the BRM, the manipulation of the meeting
| progress by Alex Brown is getting more and
| more evident, and itâs also clear that he
| was responsible for enforcing the hidden
| agenda of the meeting. A quick search on his
| blog, his âcontributionsâ to OpenXML in ISO
| and his relationship with ECMA (and ECMA
| members), will show the close relationship
| he has with OpenXML (and this is the minimum
| I can write about it).
|
| An example of such manipulation of the
| agenda is clear and obvious: The ECMA
| delegation (as far as I remember ECMA isnât
| a ISO National Body) had 30 minutes in each
| of the first two days of the BRM to make a
| speeches about âlegacy compatibilityâ. In
| summary, the Brazilian delegation (which is
| an ISO National Body), couldnât speak for
| lack of time, but the ECMA had 30 minutes in
| each of the first two days of the meeting to
| make their speech. This stupidity didnât
| happened on the other days of the BRM
| because on the second day of the BRM, during
| a meeting between Alex Brown and the HoDs,
| Deivi (head of the Brazilian delegation)
| filed a protest against these ECMAâs
| speeches.
|
| Talking about ECMAâs speeches, one of those
| was given by a representative of the British
| Library, and I mention this fact because I
| have the impression that the triad British
| Library, Alex Brown and Microsoft may turn
| on some lights for my U.K. friends ( and I
| would love to know what they have to say
| about it).
`----
http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html
Martin Bryan: we are getting âstandardization by corporationâ
,----[ Quote ]
| A November informative report of Martin Bryan, Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34
| WG1 highlights the fallout of the ECMA-376 fast-track process for ISO. He
| says he is 'glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible'
|
| [...]
|
| In what is an astonishingly outspoken report, Martin Bryan, Convenor, ISO/IEC
| JTC1/SC34 WG1 has given us insight into the total mess that Microsoft/ECMA
| have caused during their scandalous, underhand and unremitting attempts to
| get - what is a very poorly written specification {i.e. DIS 29500 aka OOXML,
| AR} - approved as an ISO standard. â
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-30107/martin-bryan:we-are-getting-standardization-by-corporation
Dysfunctional ISO - Courtesy of Microsoft
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2007/12/dysfunctional-iso-courtesy-of-microsoft.html
Microsoft accused of stacking ISO committee
,----[ Quote
| In a memo sent following his last meeting as head of the working group on
| WG1, which is handling Microsoftâs application to make the Word format an ISO
| standard as ECMA 376, outgoing Governor Martin Bryan (above), an expert on
| SGML and XML, accused the company of stacking his group.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1777
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkw3KnoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7bEwCff1zLrMTZrlczVgystUloEOee
U/IAoI3okioL5O1iMY3b4APXlhBK+D11
=8RcD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
