|
ISO will put Open XML on fast track unchanged |
|
Sunday, March 11 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT
|
Eric Lai has the news that ISO will fast track Open XML, despite filed objections: The International Standards Organization (ISO) agreed Saturday to put Open XML, the document format created and championed by Microsoft Corp., on a fast-track approval process that could see Open XML ratified as an international standard by August....
According to an e-mail sent Saturday by Lisa Rachjel, the secretariat of ISO’s Joint Technical Committee (JTC-1) on Information Technology, the Open XML proposal, along with comments and criticism by nations that have already reviewed it, will be put on the ISO’s five-month balloting process....
Rachjel wrote that she decided to move Open XML forward after consulting with staff at the International Technology Task Force. *She* decided? So the objections process is an elaborate waltz with no purpose? Why even have such a process if Microsoft can push its will forward anyway? Are there no standards for standards? Andrew Updegrove addressed that question recently, and his answer was, not so much. What is wrong with this picture?
Here's more on a conference of CIO's recently, some of whom spoke about Microsoft intimidation, as they described it: The presentation was titled “Defining Moments in IT Leadership,” and it put a glaring spotlight on these four individuals — all Computerworld Premier 100 IT Leaders — and how they responded when confronted with extraordinarily difficult and controversial challenges.
First up was Dale Frantz, the CIO at Auto Warehousing Co. Last year, he defied a campaign of intimidation on the part of Microsoft by going public with the strong-arm tactics the vendor was using to pressure him to cooperate with a review of his software licenses. Frantz remains steadfast in his defiance, and when he was onstage, he revealed that the experience had prompted him to actively seek alternatives to Microsoft.... My next guest was Louis Gutierrez, who spent a turbulent nine months last year as CIO of the state of Massachusetts....
And, like Frantz, he spoke defiantly of his relationship with a relentless Microsoft — in this case, a lobbying apparatus that was determined to bend Massachusetts to its will on office document standards. More from Gutierrez: Q: What did you find most bothersome about what Microsoft did? Gutierrez: This was the first time I had ever seen a vendor involved in efforts to re-charter the central IT agency, and I find that troubling.
Q: You mean they weren't just attacking a policy, they were attacking the agency that had developed the policy? Gutierrez: It went to that next level. Here's an interesting tidbit, from a March 6 story about Microsoft's Architechts Insight conference in the UK: Oh, and Nick McGrath (director of platform strategy at Microsoft Ltd) wants us all to petition our local standards body (BSI) to support the ratification of Ecma Open XML as an ISO standard (a pleading letter was included in the conference pack). "The issue should be technical, not political," he says. Really? Since when was standards-making not political, in part at least? Why do you think that the (mostly excellent) OMG UML 2.0 standard has redundancies in it, if not to keep participating vendors happy?
How cynical. And the public interest?
Most quaintly, a story just appeared on New Zealand's opposition to Open XML and its principal objection, "on the grounds that Open Document has already been approved". There will, of course, be another vote at the end of the fast track process, whatever that means. Not much, I gather. After that, assuming we are projecting the future correctly, we'll have some of the world driving on the ODF side of the road, so to speak, and the rest on the Open XML side, with inevitable traffic jams, which is exactly what a document standard is supposed to prevent. Wow.
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
Read the Important Stuff at the bottom of the page. If possible, make clinks
lickable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: RPN on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:32 AM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- I've considered doing the same for Myst/Riven - Authored by: artp on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Jude on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Illiander on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- for that time you spent you could have bought - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- Maxtor drivers (on Seagate site now) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- windows 95/8 install - Authored by: linuxghoul on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- What game? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- The RIAA are at again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:00 PM EDT
- More here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:09 PM EDT
- Lickable links!? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Help with Ubuntu 6.10 AMD64 & Linux Laptop Questions - Authored by: MDT on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Off topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 02:46 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
If there are any. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Can we ask Andy Updegrove to clarify why is this happening on Planet Earth ?
Is it normal ? Has it happened before ?
Does the person who approved it did it within the realms of her powers and due
diligency ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
What I (and probably many here) would like to know is, what reasoning there was
behind moving it to fast track? isn't it only meant to be fast tracked if there
aren't objections? Because from what i see here i could get anything i wanted
fast tracked, all i would need is the ear of one individual regardless of the
objections raised.
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
'wrong'.
It's not the word I choose, but my word is prohibited by the Groklaw code of
practice.
---
Regards
Ian Al[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
here is to hoping it will fail like a ton of bricks
and to all those countries that are going to receive calls and money from
redmond just tell them you are busy until the end of year - vote no and see what
happens to the money and promises.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
I Sold Out [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
> *She* decided? So the objections process is an elaborate waltz with no
purpose?
It was repeat over and over again that ISO itself and NB (national bodies) are
highly politicized. IOW, they can decide all what they want on their own - if
needed by simply reshuffling feedback. The all technical problems raised for
them are nothing. They are not techies - they are bureaucrats and they are
gatekeepers.
And M$ is of course well know player with long track of successes - when it
comes to politics and political lobbying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
Google does not find this organization.
If google does not see it, it does not
exist.
Google search for The International Technology Task
Force
Your search - "The International Technology Task Force" - did not
match any documents.
--- If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
The most common objection to the proposed standard has been the overlap
between Open XML and ODF, which the ISO ratified last May. Several countries
suggested "harmonizing" ODF with Open XML to make them more interoperable. Other
commonly-cited objections include patent violations by Open XML, the lengthiness
of Ecma’s proposal, and specific issues related to how Open XML operates
technically.
Ecma submitted lengthy rebuttals in late February those
criticisms, but did not change the Open XML proposal.
A vote whether or not
to approve Open XML will take place exactly five months from the date the ballot
is officially issued, Leistner said. Countries, even those that have
submitted official memos criticizing or praising the Open XML proposal, can
change their positions. Computerworld My
emphasis.
Reading this story in combination with Microsoft's
reaction?
Microsoft did not immediately return an e-mailed request for
comment
I don't think that ISO has necessarily buckled to
M$.
They received numerous objections from their members.
They asked
ECMA to respond and received rebuttals to their members complaints without ECMA
making any changes to their standard.
Why should ISO wait any
longer than 5 months to vote and reject the OOXML standard?
Brian
S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Sun also pursued Java standardisation through the JTC-1 fast track, and were
similarly arrogant about their intention to control the standard, so I don't
think
this is particularly new.
What I can't really recall or find much about is how that worked out for them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
At last, the year 1900 will for ever be recorded as a leap year. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
It's nothing of the sort... It's merely Microsoft desperately trying to get a
tick in the box so they can carry on "winning" contracts that now
specify that the software must support an internationally recognised
specification...
This "Open XML" is impossible for other vendors to fully comply with
being merely a dump (in XML) of the binary format of Microsoft's closed
specifications with various parts being hidden away and impossible to emulate.
Please refer to it by its proper name "Microsoft Office Open XML" to
avoid confusion... the entire point of Microsoft calling it "Office Open
XML" was to create confusion in the first place between it and the other
truly open specification that already exists.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
I take some solace in the fact that not all ISO approved standards are actually
adopted by the market place. For instance, when doing configurations of
ethernet interfaces on AIX, you can choose either "ISO 802.3" or
"Standard" as the interface type. And for most networks, people use
the de-facto standard, not the ISO one.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
Amazing what money can buy!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
There are just too many contradictions that won't be corrected for OOXML to be
approved by the ISO. Is it possible that ISO knows it will fail and are just
saying, "let's not waste more time on this, vote it down in 5 months and be
done with it."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
According to Computerworld five countries, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, the
Czech Republic, Finland, and Kenya have objected to putting Open XML on a
fast-track approval process. Surely Lisa Rachjel should give some explanation
as to why she overrode the five objections.
Computerworld
----------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
you want it, you will get it.
the only question is how long. but fear
not, just a few months is all it takes.
Why bother? We might as well disband
the so called ISO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Baker on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
I find it quite impressive that Microsoft has now managed to show the ISO
processes as sufficiently flawed to adjust it to their wishes.
We have NATIONS objecting - people that represent whole countries - and still
they manage to steamroller them to the point of at least keeping the fast track
process.
However, there are two major league problems in the offing here for MS:
(1) it gives them less chance to creatively sponsor those who are getting in the
way of approval
(2) it may just point at a faster dismissal of Non-Open Office XML as a
standard
(3) ISO committee could get their own back - they will require MS actually
proves full compliance with its spec before it can call any product ISO
compliant. At 600+ pages that may just prove a little bit of a challenge :-)
---
= P =
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chuck on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
ODF sucks a little less only because the product is more open, but both XML
formats are essentially an XML recoding of the binary format of the application.
Both are specified as "the application shall behave like Word/OpenOffice
Writer" and both are laden with kludged-in tags that do nothing more than
specify "bend it like [product version]" (and at least OXML has a
predictable naming convention for those tags).
I would like both repulsive bloated "standards" to be binned
post-haste, and would rather see something like an extension of DocBook, or an
XML-ification of TeX ... or something new, with reasonable orthogonality and
extensibility. As it is, ISO is nothing more than a playground for vendors, and
regardless of which format "wins", ISO loses by becoming irrelevant.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
I thought that, even if they manage this, there were enough votes against it
that it'd flat-out fail if voted on right now?
Or has Microsoft been lobbying internationally again? I seem to remember that
they got a few rejects changed to abstains by joining the relevant organizations
in a few countries where the vote had to be unanimous... or something like that,
if I understood it.
Of course, conversely, this illustrates just how important it is to Microsoft
that they get it recognized. If the governments of the world standardize on a
non-Microsoft format, that might finally break their control over the word
processing market. People might actually be able to choose to use whichever
program(s) they wanted, rather than being stuck with the latest version of
Office, because anything else would be unable to open the documents people sent
them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
1) There are sufficient objections that it would not pass as it stands.
2) It is not going to be changed to meet those objections.
Conclusion 1: It will not become an ISO standard.
Conclusion 2: Taking it off the fast track would waste a lot of time and
money.
Conclusion 3: It is better to get this over with than to wait.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I quite agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Dream on - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: PM on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
This is starting to raise the issue of ISO overall intergrity. I see the
present process as a challenge to ISO integrity. If the IT committee is
becoming 'suspect', then the committees who consider widgets, light switches,
etc may start to express serious concern that ISO's integrity is starting to be
compromised. In this regard ISO oversees many standards that are not in use in
North America (but adopted by most European, Asian and Pacific countries), this
particularly applies to electrical equipment from power station equipment to
home appliances.
This is probably the background to the NZ Standards Association's concern.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
This is merely a decision on how to proceed. This number of objections to a fast
track process is unprecedented, and the ISO is entering new territory here. In
the absence of precedent someone needed to decide on the process to be followed.
As indicated in the article about New Zealand's response, the ISO really had
only two options.
1. Stop the fast track process: Open the proposed standard to review and permit
modifications.
2. Continue the fast track process: Submit it to either pass or fail as it
stands.
My guess would be that the first option was determined to be practically
impossible so they are going with the second.
Fear not. Unless ISO is totally corrupt (which I suspecd judgement on), I'd
expect a fast track rejection to follow in due course.
It is easy to see why the proposed standard cannot be subjected to a review
process permitting modification. ECMA has already confirmed it as one of their
standards which would mean if ISO amended it there would be two conflicting
versions. This is no doubt the precise reason why a fast track process for ECMA
proposals exists at all.
Of course Microsoft isn't going to want it amended either because it was written
to conform to the behavior of their software; but whether or not Microsoft has
any official say in the matter is problematical. In theoretical terms it is
between ECMA and ISO. In practical terms of course Microsoft is the hand behind
the ECMA glove.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Let's hope it's that kind of "putting on the fast track". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
I keep seeing more governments moving away from Microsoft. Since ODF is already
a standard, Microsoft may be starting to lose so many customers that Word will
eventually become irrelevant.
There's not only Linux and the BSDs, but platform-independent Google apps.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
I have a question about the accountability of international organisations like
ISO, WIPO, WTO etc. Are these organisations held accountable, and how. If they
or their members are found to be acting corruptly or in conflict with their
mandate, who and how can they be challenged and held to account?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, I find it hard to take you seriously, when you refer to New Zealand
as "quaint". I do agree that the standard is a bizarre mess of ...
how was it termed ... "memory dumps enclosed in angle brackets" but
saying an entire country's opinion is quainty is just a load of hogwash. No
credibility for you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
If it can't be fixed than it needs to be put down. The national standard bodies
have put voted proposals down before. "She" is really saying;
"this can't be fixed".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
If this gets passed then there can only be one interpretation. No ISO standards
may be relied upon.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I've found a great big HINT. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:22 PM EDT
- About Interoperability. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:40 PM EDT
- And while I think about this. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- Eeeeewwwwwwwwwww - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT
- Jason Matusow, senior director at Microsoft for IP and interoperability says..... - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- ISO is a Wookie. NT - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- IF........ - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- I believe that this has been Plan A for quite a few years. - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 01:39 AM EDT
- The Free Standards Group WAS.... - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 01:59 AM EDT
- 1st March 2007: "EU warns Microsoft of new fines - You will comply" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 04:35 AM EDT
- SCOG is a Wookie. - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- February 02, 2007: "XP Support Extended" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 05:37 AM EDT
|
Authored by: tce on Monday, March 12 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT |
The USA representation on this matter by INCITS creates a concern with regard to
business "practicalities" possibly having weight over government,
national, and international citizen benefit, and, in general, the shared
responsibility for well crafted, PROFESSIONAL standards.
Any notions on how the USA National leadership's attention is directed toward
ANSIto then direct their wise and thoughtful attention (which includes a rep
from Microsoft) to the INCITS Exec Board (which includes Microsoft)?
INCITS and ANSI Board website and info follows:
------ INCITS ----------
NOTE: INCITS Board Members are Organizations, not people...?!?
InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards Executive Board
(http://www.incits.org/ebmem.htm)
AIM Global Inc
American National Standards Institute
Apple Inc
Electronic Industries Alliance
EMC Corporation
Farance Inc
GS1 US
Hewlett-Packard Company
IBM Corporation
IEEE
Intel Corporation
Lexmark International
Microsoft Corporation
NIST
Oracle Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc
The Open Group
United States Dept of Defense
United States Dept of Homeland Security
-------------------
ANSI http://www.ansi.org/consumer_affairs/cic.aspx?menuid=5
Consumer Interest Forum (CIF)
The Consumer Interest Forum (CIF) works to facilitate the representation of
consumer interests in voluntary standards and conformity assessment activities.
It thereby enhances the effectiveness and credibility of the ANSI Federation as
representative of all materially affected interests.
Consumers are defined as those individuals who use goods or services to satisfy
their individual needs and desires, rather than to resell them or to produce
other goods or services with them ("Consumers"). ...
--- ANSI Board ------
http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/structure_management/board_directors/board_direct
ors_members.aspx?menuid=1
<RANT I note that this table has the column "Representing"...ANSI
should represent the interests of US Citizens. Might better be labeled
"Affiliation", or perhaps "potential conflict of interest"?
/RANT>
2007 ANSI Board of Directors
Director Representing Term Expires Dec 31
Dr. Norris E. Alderson
Food and Drug Administration Directors-at-Large 2007
Dr. George W. Arnold
National Institute of Standards and Technology Past Chairman of the Board
(ex-officio) 2007
Mr. Dan Bart
Telecommunications Industry Association Chairman, Intellectual Property
Rights Policy Committee (ex-officio) 2007
Mr. Marc R. Bussan
Whirlpool Corporation Directors-at-Large 2007
Ms. Joan Walsh Cassedy
American Council of Independent Laboratories Chair, Conformity Assessment
Policy Committee (ex-officio) 2007
Mr. Colin B. Church
Consumer Product Safety Commission Directors-at-Large 2007
Mr. Steven J. Cole
Council of Better Business Bureaus Directors-at-Large 2007
Dr. Belinda L. Collins
National Institute of Standards and Technology Chair, ANSI ISO Council (AIC)
(ex-officio) 2007
Mr. Arthur E. Cote,
P.E. Vice Chairman, Chair, Finance Committee, Chair 2007 Nominating
Committee (ex-officio) 2007
Dr. Donald R. Deutsch
Oracle Directors-at-Large 2007
Dr. Lester F. Eastwood, Jr.
Motorola Corporate Offices Directors-at-Large 2007
Dr. Richard J. Forselius
Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. a United Technology Co. Directors-at-Large
2007
Dr. David Foster
Caveon, LLC Directors-at-Large 2007
Mr. Evan R. Gaddis
National Electrical Manufacturers Association Directors-at-Large 2007
Ms. Linda F. Golodner
National Consumers League Chairman, Consumer Interest Forum (CIF)
(ex-officio) 2007
Ms. Judith Gorman
IEEE Standards Activities Directors-at-Large 2007
Ms. Laura Hitchcock
Boeing Company Directors-at-Large 2007
Mr. Daryl R. Hunt
Eastman Kodak Company Directors-at-Large 2007
Mr. Kevan P. Lawlor
NSF International Directors-at-Large 2007
Ms. June Ling
ASME International Directors-at-Large 2008
Ms. Amy A. Marasco
Microsoft Corporation Directors-at-Large 2009
Mr. James E. Matthews, III
Corning Incorporated President, United States National Committee (USNC)
(ex-officio) 2008
Mr. Donald Mays
Consumers Union/Consumer Reports Directors-at-Large 2009
Dr. Nina I. McClelland
Nina I. McClelland, LLC Directors-at-Large 2007
Dr. Mary C. McKiel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vice Chairman and Chairman, National
Policy Committee (ex-officio) 2007/08
Mr. Alexander (Alec) McMillan
Rockwell Automation Directors-at-Large 2009
Dr. Celia Merzbacher
Executive Office of the President of the US Directors-at-Large 2008
Ms. Susan M. Miller
Alliance for Telecommunications IndustrySolutions Directors-at-Large
2008
Ms. Mary J. Mitchell
General Services Administration Chairman, Government Member Forum
(ex-officio) 2007
Dr. Barbara L. Nichols
Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools Directors-at-Large
2007
Mr. Robert W. Noth
Deere & Company Chairman of the Board (ex-officio) 2007
Mr. Stephen P. Oksala
Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers Vice Chairman 2007
Mr. James T. (Jim) Pauley
Square D Company Vice Chairman 2008
Dr. R. David Pittle
Consumer Representative Directors-at-Large 2008
Mr. William Primosch
National Association of Manufacturers Directors-at-Large 2007
Mr. Gregory E. Saunders
U.S. Department of Defense Directors-at-Large 2008
Ms. Mary H. Saunders
National Institute of Standards and Technology Chair, International Policy
Committee (IPC) (ex-officio) 2007
Mr. August W. Schaefer
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Directors-at-Large 2009
Mr. Ronald F. Silletti
IBM Corporation Directors-at-Large 2008
Ms. Sharon K. Stanford
American Dental Association Chairman, Organizational Member Forum (OMF)
(ex-officio) 2007
Ms. Joan E. Sterling
Intertek Testing Services Directors-at-Large 2008
Mr. William G. Sutton
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Directors-at-Large 2009
Mr. Michael Taubitz
General Motors Corp. Chairman, Company Member Forum (CMF) (ex-officio)
2007
Mr. James A. Thomas
ASTM International Directors-at-Large 2007
Ms. Kathleen A. Thuner
(For NACAA—National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators)
Directors-at-Large 2008
Mr. Andrew Updegrove
Gesmer Updegrove LLP Directors-at-Large 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13 2007 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
How far do you think Microsoft will have extended the de facto version? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|