|
|
| When do National Bodies get to change a vote on MSOOXML? |
 |
|
Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:07 AM EST
|
Here's something odd. Is this something that needs to be clarified before the February ballot resolution meeting on MSOOXML?
The FAQ that Alex Brown published about the MSOOXML ballot resolution meeting tells us that National Bodies have 30 days after the February meeting to change a vote: 5.2 How long will NBs have after the meeting to inform ITTF of a changed
vote?
If a NB wishes to modify its vote from that of the 2 September
ballot, it must inform ITTF *within 30 days of the end of the
BRM*. At this time, ITTF will re-tally the votes and the fate
of DIS 29500 will be decided. I read that as saying that delegates attend the meeting, and then they go home and talk things over as a group, and if the group decides it wishes to change its country's vote, it has 30 days to do so. However, if you visit ISO/IEC's JTC 1/SC 34 - Document Description and Processing Languages page, it seems to say a country can change its vote at the meeting itself. And later wording in the FAQ seems to confirm that understanding, as I'll show you. But we're also hearing that there may not be room for everyone to fit into the room booked for the meeting. So, I'm seeing a potential for some gaming of the rules. Let me explain, please, what is worrying me.
Here's the rule it lays out, and I've marked the salient points in red: DIS 29500 BRM:
In regard to the September 2, 2007 JTC 1 ballot on the fast track DIS 29500 based on Ecma 376, the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) is scheduled for the week of February 25-29, 2008 at the International Conference Centre Geneva http://www.cicg.ch/en/index.php. Only representatives of those national bodies who responded to the ballot that closed September 2 are eligible to attend, and, therefore, only those national bodies are permitted to change their registered vote on DIS 29500 with their membership status as recorded in ballot summary. No additional votes can be cast in this matter; P-member/O-member membership status in SC34 is irrelevant to the BRM.
The fast track submitter has agreed to provide a revised specification by January 14, 2008 for all voting national bodies to consider in their review of their original vote. At the end of the BRM national bodies present will indicate if their original vote stands or if they wish to change their original vote; there is no new vote per se on approving the DIS. In accordance with the JTC 1 Directives, the progress of the specification will depend on the revised status of all previously-received votes at the end of the BRM. Registration is accomplished by email to the SC 34 Secretariat Manager before December 11, 2007. National bodies are advised that due to the limited size of the venue there may be some limitations placed on the size of a delegation, regardless of the number of attendees registered by a national body. We will try to establish any attendance limitations before the new year based on advance registration. Observers, press and national bodies not voting in the September 2, 2007 ballot are prohibited from attending the BRM. I read that as saying that the NBs go to the meeting and *at the end of the meeting*, they say if they wish to change their vote or not. The Brown FAQ also says that votes can be taken at the meeting, or at least that is how I read this part: 6.8 If votes are taken during the BRM, who votes?
Those present.
6.9 May NBs vote by proxy?
No formal NB proxies are possible at the BRM.
6.10 If a NB expert did not participate in the BRM, may this NB subsequently change their vote?
All ISO/IEC JTC 1 NBs will receive the results of the BRM immediately after the meeting. Upon review of the BRM results, any NB that voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote, whether or not their expert(s) attended the BRM. This looks like a recipe for disenfranchisement. If some can't get into the room, now what? With no recording, no observers, no transcripts, and no press to monitor, how would the left-out-of-the-room group know what really happened inside that sealed and super confidential room? On what basis, then, would a non-attending expert or anybody else subsequently change a vote? Based on hearsay? I am getting more and more concerned about this too-small meeting room. Let's imagine a scenario, how it might work out in real life. Let's imagine that a delegation is deeply divided in its views. Think Hungary in September, for example, as a kind of template. If not everyone from our imaginary delegation can fit into the room, given the space constraints, and about half of them are opposed and half are for the MSOOXML standard proposal, but the head of the delegation is a Microsoft person, how might it play out? Let's say the National Body voted No originally, or abstained.
See where I'm going?
Now, let's further imagine that because there will be too many wanting to attend, the National Bodies are told that they need to prune the delegations. Someone has to decide who attends and who gets pruned. Who decides?
What if, just imagining now, the rule is set forth that the head of the delegation gets to make that decision. Now, in our imaginary scenario, the head of our delegation is inclined toward changing the vote to Yes, and as long as we are just imagining, let's say he's willing to play some tricks to make that happen. He has the power to play some games if he gets to decide which of the delegates are let into the room and which are not, don't you think?
So let's say he directs most of the half of the delegation that is opposed into the "no room at the inn" category and most of the "we adore MSOOXML" group are chosen to get in. Of course, they'll fight about that, but rules are rules, and it's his call. And even if they take it to court or whatever, before the dispute is finished playing out in court, the meeting takes place. Let's further imagine that the now highly pro-Microsoft attendees from that country announce *at the February meeting* that they wish to change the country's vote to Yes.
Now what happens?
Can they do so without consulting the rest? Apparently so. At least I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent it. Those left out are informed of the results, I gather. But what can they do about the vote? Anything? It already happened. And note the FAQ says there can be no proxies, so the folks who can't fit in the room are left voiceless, unless I'm missing something, which is certainly always possible. But one thing I am clear on: due process isn't something that happens in the dark.
Does anyone know exactly how this is all supposed to work? Shouldn't everyone know up-front and long before the February meeting precisely what is possible and exactly what to expect and how to change a vote and when and who can do it? Couldn't this be avoided by simply booking a larger room and letting everyone attend who wishes to? Or if that really is impossible and this is the only room in the world where this meeting can be held, isn't it an absolute necessity to have some type of recording or transcription, so that at least the left-out delegates know what happened inside that room? Or at a bare minimum, shouldn't there be rules that forbid a delegation that isn't 100 percent able to fit into the room from voting at the meeting? Hopefully, there are rules within rules, and I just don't know about them. But do the delegates know? That is what counts.
Of course, it's the countries that voted No or Abstain that Microsoft really wants to have change their votes to Yes, so if I were from any of those countries, I'd definitely want to pay close attention to every detail of the rules, and I would surely want the questions I've raised definitively and authoritatively answered prior to the February meeting.
Here are the countries that voted No in September:
Brazil
Canada
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
France
India
Iran
Ireland
Japan
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
South Africa
South Korea
Thailand
UK
Here are the countries that abstained, going by the list ISO published on the day of the vote in September:
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Chile
Finland
Israel
Italy
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Netherlands
Peru
Spain
Trinidad/Tobago
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:19 AM EST |
| Please place corrections to the story or the site in this thread.
Please
state the nature of the correction in the comment's Title:
line.
Thanks.
---
One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:23 AM EST |
| For best results, place comments not related to the main article
here.
Please choose the appropriate Post Mode: for your
comment.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a
choice.
Thanks.
---
One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:26 AM EST |
| This thread is where to post comments on Groklaw's News Picks (the right-hand
column on the main page).
Please mention which News Pick you are commenting
on.
Thanks!
---
One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:34 AM EST |
PJ, I trust you are following Alex'
blog. Over the past few days he has
been
explaining some of the the things
on his mind as he prepares for the JTC1
SC34
session in Kyoto. I get the
impression he believes he is firmly in control,
especially And so,
while I have up till now thought that a solid
grounding in the JTC 1 Directives
and meeting procedures would be a good
education for convening the coming BRM,
I am coming to believe that in fact
the
best preparation is being a father of
two small children, both of whom are
sometimes prone to intemperate outbreaks
of sibling-
rivalry The balance
must be about right if both sides
believe they will lose only thru "failure of
process".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:35 AM EST |
| I'm missing something here.
The world's largest standard setting body can't
find a room big enough for all delegates? For a meeting being planned months in
advance?
Come on.
Apparently, ISO needs to come up with a Standard
Meeting Room Standard, or something.
Even the Army has standard sized tents
for various events done in the middle of a
war.
Ridiculous.
---
One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:44 AM EST |
Hopefully, there are rules within rules, and I just don't know
about them. But do the delegates know? That is what
counts.
Given all the disinformation that was floating around
before the February and September votes I think this time too there will be
massive amounts of wrong voter information.
Remember the classics, eg, only
violations of the laws of nature count as contradictions, the vote has been
delayed by a week, you can't change your February vote, if you think OOXML is
defective by design you MUST vote Yes with
comments.
Disenfranchisement. seems the name of the game MS plays.
Nothing seems to happen by chance, small rooms, no access to the original
comments and very limited access to the resolutions. See also the newspick post
of Bob Sutor Comments
on ECMA’s (aka Microsoft’s) OOXML comment resolutions.
You know,
The fact that you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after
you
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say
it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:50 AM EST |
The ISO process seems to be set up for everyone wanting the process to work.
That is why gaming the system is so easy.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:53 AM EST |
Can't they also change their vote after the BRM to either Yes or No?
Aren't they under as much pressure as countries who voted "No"?
Also, there were some countries who voted "Yes" under
less-than-convincing circumstances. Isn't there any chance that they will change
their vote back to "No"? Or is the fix set in that comprehensively
that none of that will happen?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 02:59 AM EST |
6.7 What criteria may NBs use in deciding whether (or not) to switch their
votes?
No constraints are placed upon the criteria NBs may use for deciding their
voting position.
This means that the national bodies can have all their comments
"resolved" but still think that rubber stamping a proprietary format
as an international standard is a terrible idea and vote no. They can also vote
no if they think a comment from another country has not been addressed.
I hope this is well understood by the national bodies. I expect Microsoft wants
them to think that they must vote yes if their comments are addressed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 03:15 AM EST |
..must change vote .... must change vote .... must change vote ... it's
getting a little scary!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 03:54 AM EST |
The world wide standard for operating any committee meeting is "Robert's
Rules Of Order". The entire purpose of "Robert's Rules Of Order" is to ensure
"Courtesy, Justice, and Impartiality ".
Having a room that isn't big
enough to hold all the offical potential voting delegates would automatically
void/disqualify any vote taken at a committee meeting. This is not even a duH!
moment!
Send the chair, and secretary (and all official voting delegates
to the up and coming meeting) a copy of "Robert's Rules Of
Order":
http://www.robertsrules.com/
CLICKY
At the same time you might
send all of the above John Locke's "The Second Treatise Of Civil Government
1690"
It's available in PDF format for free from MIT's Open Course
Ware:
http://search.mit.edu/search?__EVENTTARGET=&__EVENTARGUMENT=&
site=ocw&client=mit&getfields=*&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystyleshee
t=http%3A%2F%2Focw.mit.edu%2FOcwWeb%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle-ocw.xsl&proxyreload=1&
amp;as_dt=i&oe=utf-8&departmentName=web&courseName=&q=robert%27s
+rules+of+order&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0
CLICKY [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 03:56 AM EST |
I think there's one thing, though: it's the national bodies that vote,
not their delegates. So even if the head of the delegation you describe wants to
change the vote, he has to abide by the rules set by the national body he's a
delegate for. If that body has a rule saying that it requires a vote of the body
to determine or change the body's position on an ISO vote, then if their
delegate tries to change the vote without following his body's rules it's
invalid. The national body would have to object, but if they did I suspect the
change would have to be be discarded.
What I think's more likely is that
MS is going to try to arrange it so that those bodies that voted Yes, with or
without comments, don't get a seat in the room at the BRM at all. MS will want
to make it as easy as possible for those that voted No to change, but as hard as
possible for those that voted Yes.
I also think that it's a case of you
can change your vote at the end of the meeting, simply because that's a
special case of changing your vote within 30 days of the BRM, but you don't
have to change it then. That'd have to be the case if not all national
bodies can get a seat, or if they aren't required to attend but still have the
right to change their vote (which is what the language of the rules seems to say
is the case). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 04:36 AM EST |
PJ, you have hit right on the nail!
It has been said that ISO has rules that assumes everybody plays fair and acts
reasonably. The room too small wouldn't be a problem when the delegate
represents a NB that has achieved internal consensus and the delegate acts
according the the will of his NB.
This is not the case here. If ISO turn a blind eye to the fact that a major
player wants to game the system then their credibility goes down the drain. It
is not like there were no room play and gamemanship during previous stages of
this process. ISO has an implicit duty to adapt to circumstances here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 06:59 AM EST |
Has anyone said how, or by whom, the room assignment for the meeting was arrived
at? Everyone here assumes that Microsoft somehow influenced this decision.
Let me say that I am for a single open standard for office documents, and I feel
that the standard should be ODF, but making wild accusations about the ISO being
in MS's pocket to the point where they are assigning meeting rooms specifically
to further MS's agenda is a bit over the edge of the conspiracy theory event
horizon in my opinion.
I am confident that the ISO has a lot of experience with this sort of thing and
have based the room size on previous experience. Since only 87 member countries
voted in the September ballot, only 87 national bodies at the most can send
delegates to the BRM. In my experience of various types of meetings over the
years, I know that not everyone is going to send a delegate. If 60 of the 87
national bodies do send delegates, and they all send 2, then the room size is
exactly appropriate. 60 out of 87 is almost 68%. The more likely scenario from
my experience is that about 75% of the national bodies that voted in September
will send delegates, which is 65 countries, but some will only send one
delegate, some will send 2 and a few might send 3 or more. In the end, my bet
is, that at the worst, some countries third and fourth (etc.) delegates might be
excluded from the room for lack of space, but everyones primary delegate, and
most probably the secondary delegate from the countries sending 2 or more, will
fit into the room and be allowed to participate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: schestowitz on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 07:03 AM EST |
There was an incident some months ago where Microsoft deceived those who would
vote, leaving them little or no time to prepare. The analogy made by Rob Weir
was that of an election day where someone names that wrong date so that you
can't vote. I'll find the details later...
---
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- After the fact - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 01:05 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 07:10 AM EST |
As the rules that PJ posted say, individual national bodies can change their
votes up to 30 days after the meeting. Some may announce that they have decided
to change their vote at the meeting, but that doesn't make it a final count of
votes at that point.
<blockquote>5.2 How long will NBs have after the meeting to inform ITTF of
a changed vote? If a NB wishes to modify its vote from that of the 2 September
ballot, it must inform ITTF *within 30 days of the end of the BRM*. At this
time, ITTF will re-tally the votes and the fate of DIS 29500 will be decided.
</blockquote>
At the end of the 30 days there will be a re-tally of the votes based on any
changes made. I am sure that if some lead delegate does what PJ envisions, and
causes their countries vote to change at the BRM, and then the other members of
that national body challenge that change, the national body in question can
notify the ITTF before the end of the 30 days of any new decision that might
nullify what was said at the BRM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is it recursive? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Oops! - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 05:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 07:17 AM EST |
Actually the process does have some transparency. It will be transparent that
Microsoft is cheating.
This is why MSOOXML will never be a legitimate standard. Stuffing
ballot boxes, like your garden variety tyrant, is never accepted
anywhere as a valid result.
Microsoft knows this as well as anyone. Which is why I think
Microsoft's real purpose is to destroy ISO.
Maybe it deserves to be. Where are ISO's executives? Are they
powerless? Do they care?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 07:21 AM EST |
I'm not confident they can really keep the meeting secret, and they must know
that anything they do will likely be shouted from the housetops.
Suppose they allow only 50 people into the room. There is a very strong
likelihood that someone will spill the beans. It's just not human nature to keep
a secret.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 07:31 AM EST |
The individual national bodies decide whether or not to change their votes,
therefore if Microsoft is meddling that is where the meddling will be taking
place.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 08:10 AM EST |
| Couldn't this be avoided by simply booking a larger room and letting everyone
attend who wishes to?
PJ, once again:
I've been involved in
scheduling meetings like this. If you want a conference room large enough to
hold more than 120 people, you have to book it more than a year in
advance.
And, no, you can't use a high-school gym for a solid week. The
school has that scheduled much more than a year in advance too.
The
problem is that those extra-large rooms are subdividable so that it's not an
all-or-nothing proposition. A 120-person meeting (think fire code) already eats
up two or more "bays." All it takes is one day during the week when there
aren't three "bays" available and you're down to 120.
Oh, and there's this
little thing called a "budget." Booking 120 seats for a week costs something on
the order of $40,000, much of which is non-refundable. Standards bodies
aren't rolling in cash (again, "been there, done that") and paying for the
120-seat venue plus paying last-minute charges for the larger one would
very likely show up as a $60,000 budget overrun. I don't know about you,
but I don't have that pocket cash.
Well, you might ask, how about some
generous sponsor kicking in for the larger location? After all, I'm sure that
Microsoft has a conference room in Geneva and you wouldn't mind having them make
some arrangements, would you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 08:31 AM EST |
Who is Alex Brown? Is he a spokes person, or is he responsible for the limited
meeting room? Who is responsible for this mess, and why doesn't the standards
body stand up for open standards????????????????? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: barbacana on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 08:36 AM EST |
Of course, it's the countries that voted No or Abstain that Microsoft
really wants to have change their votes to Yes, so if I were from any of those
countries, I'd definitely want to pay close attention to every detail of the
rules
Of course it's important to counter the underhand maneuvers
that Microsoft will use to get these countries to change their votes.
But
surely we should also work to get the countries that voted Yes to reverse their
votes? The technical case for a "no" vote is clear and unanswerable; every one
of the countries that voted Yes was maneuvered into doing so by ballot-stuffing,
political influence, or some other corrupt and/or dishonest means. Surely some
of them are susceptible to reversal? Is there a list somewhere of people to
contact so that those of us who want to help, can offer services? Is the US
"yes" vote, for example, beyond all hope of rescue? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Judicial review? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 15 2007 @ 10:18 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 08:42 AM EST |
"isn't it an absolute necessity to have some type of recording or
transcription"
this is what is amazing to me - how can a international standards body have a
meeting of this importance and not have an official transcript from the meeting.
especially if they are in a room that is too small for everyone that is involved
- this would be even more important. but then again I have not entered the
microsoft reality realm.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcweir on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 09:00 AM EST |
The thing to watch is the size of the Ecma delegation. Will they be held to the
same size limitations as NB's? Or will they be allowed a super-sized or even
unrestricted delegation?
The latest numbers I saw indicated that around 32 NB's plus Ecma were planning
on attending the BRM. So, we're probably talking about 3-4 delegates per NB.
Since this is a technical meeting, and we're talking about a very lengthy and
complex standard, it is important for an NB to be able to bring experts in a
variety of disciplines. No single person will be an expert in international
scripts, vector graphics, mathematical notation layout, etc.
Note that this is all unprecedented. BRM's typically involve 6 people sitting
around a conference table for an afternoon.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 09:58 AM EST |
Apologies for posting here, but the original article no longer allows comments.
Re: BBC's Ashley Highfield, interviewed by Sean Daly -- "The Solution Is To Move
Beyond DRM".
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171&query=iplayer
Picture of BBC iPlayer running on Ubuntu box:
http://farm
3.static.flickr.com/2160/2106493300_e05212f461.jpg
"THE BOYS AT
Auntie have finally finished beavering away on a version of the BBC Iplayer
that, you know, works ... Unlike the Windows Media / DRM-infested train wreck
that was the initial incarnation of the player, this one uses the
altogether-simpler Flash for web-based streaming of the last seven days of TV
... The cross-platform Flash technology enables Mac and Linux fans to get in on
the action." - giafly
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/13/bbc-finally
-fixes-flash-iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/
http://jam
es.cridland.net/blog/2007/12/12/iplayer-on-gnulinux/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not universal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 11:11 AM EST
- Not universal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2007 @ 04:43 PM EST
|
|
|
|
