|
|
| OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway |
 |
|
Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:03 PM EDT
|
If Microsoft gets this OOXML format "approved", it will be by irregularities in the voting, it seems.
Here's more on what happened in Germany and a report on what is being called a scandal in Norway. And another odd process in Croatia.
If you can read German, here's the story on what happened there. For those who can't, when they went to vote, they were not allowed to vote disapprove, so the choice was to approve or to abstain. It was a tie, 6:6, which means no consensus. So under the rules I've read, that would have meant that they should send a vote of Abstain.
But surprise, surprise!! A solution helpful to Microsoft: the representative from DIN decided to cast a vote, which isn't the process. DIN isn't supposed to vote, because it's supposed to advise. But this, they rationalized, was a vote not about whether to accept OOXML on the basis of *technical* issues, but whether to accept the approval suggestion of the technical committee. So DIN voted to accept DIN's suggestion. Hence Germany ends up in the Approve column. I know. No doubt there will be objections filed. Norway's at least as bad. Here's an article from Norway, and the translation of the title of the article is, "Scandal in Standards Norway. I didn't write that headline. They did. And here's why. The article says there should be an investigation of the irregularities there, because while there were only two votes to approve, from Microsoft and a business partner, Statoilhydro, and all the others voted no, 21 votes, they approved anyway. Here's how they shuffled the deck in Norway. So they put everyone out of the room, and Standards Norway, three people were left in the room, and they usurped the decision and made it their business to decide to approve anyway. Unbelievable. If it was happening in only one country, you might think it was local difficulties. But when it happens in place after place, one can only conclude that Microsoft, although outnumbered in a fair vote, has sufficient clout behind the scenes to shove this format into the world's mouth and hold its mouth closed by force until the world is compelled to swallow.
Remember that Microsoft memo that surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation? The one about how to stack a panel discussion at conferences so it would be favorable to Microsoft? The key was to get to be the moderator. One thing is certain. Unless ISO steps up and fixes this mess, it will lose the world's respect, and rightly so. Either the rules mean something, or they don't, but if they don't standards don't mean anything either.
Here's a translation of the ComputerWorld.dk article, so you can read all the gruesome details:
The proponents of open standards are shocked over the incompetence and
procedural errors made in Standards Norway and accuse the organization
of not taking into account national interest.
While Shahzad Rand and Microsoft worry themselves about whether OOXML is
recommended by Standards Norway, resistors are up in arms over Friday's
decision.
CTO Håkon Wium Lie at Opera Software, who has worked for a number of
years with the Internet and standards is deeply disturbed.
"This is a scandal! I am shocked. I am speechless. 21 members of the
committee say no, while MS manages to win through its position anyway.
It is incomprehensible," says Wium Lie angrily.
The meeting on Friday began first with a general committee in Standards
Norway, which thereafter was reduced to key individuals in the
organization plus five representatives who were in attendance at the ISO
meeting in Geneva. At the end, even these were dismissed, and three
individuals from Standards Norway made the decision.
Not qualified
"Those who made the decision at the end are not those who know the most
about this. They are not qualified to make this type of decision and do
not necessarily have national interests at heart. They do not represent
the Norwegian committee," says Wium Lie.
Ha has received support from the committee head, Steve Pepper , who also
declares the decision incomprehensible.
"I am deeply shocked that Standards Norway has chosen to ignore the
large majority in the committee. It is the bureaucrats in the committee
who have said yes, not Norway. It is a win for MS and a great loss for
the rest of the world," says Pepper.
According to Pepper, there were only two in favor of OOXML as an ISO
standard: Microsoft and its partner Statoilhydro.
The process warrants investigation
"So if the majority in the committee were against OOXMl, why do you
think that Standards Norway said yes. They have been targeted of enormous pressure from one market interest
which has use of great resources, and they have most likely been more
preoccupied by their own interests as a standards organization than
by the end users interests," says Pepper.
He emphasizes that it is an advantage for one organization to have
responsibility for a large and important standard as OOXML with its 8000
pages of specifications.
"Someone should go in and review Standards Norway and the process when
they can go and reach such hair-raising conclusions."
He also dismisses Shahzad Rana's arguments that the disagreement in the
committee was based on syntactical elements in the specification.
"It was not syntactical at all, that which was brought up was the core
of the problem. The Norwegian comments on functionality were not
addressed," says Wium Lie who claims that the document format is
something only MS has the possibility to implement, because it is so large.
Tough decision
Bjørnhild Sæterøy is leader of the OOXML project in Standards Norway,
She opines that the process went as it should. "It was a very difficult decision because there was strong resistance
against OOXML and we did not attain consensus on whether our comments
were addressed or not," says Sæterøy.
She implies that it is important for ISO and Standards Norway to
have a grip on something so big and important a format as OOXML.
"We made this decision because we wish to be within the further
development of the standard. It gives us an opportunity to influence
what happens. We await responses."
Wium Lie and Pepper opine that those in Standards Norway have ignored
the majority's intentions.
"They are welcome to their opinions. Beyond that I have no comments,"
says Sæterøy.
Lost respect
Pepper has been a volunteer in standards work for 13 years, but after
Friday's decision and the way in which the decision was made he has lost
respect for Standards Norway, and it cannot be ruled out that he retires
from standards work.
"I am motivated by a moral position for open standards and if it is now
market forces which take over ISO work, then that is something
completely different. I must sleep on it," says an exhausted Steve Pepper
PS Standards Norway, a picture of Bjørnhild Sæterøy, and their page on OOXML.
Croatia
Here's an account regarding Croatia from the oddparity blog. They voted Yes with comments in September. When they wanted to vote again after the BRM, Microsoft refused to participate, claiming no revote after the BRM was mandatory. The result was overwhelming rejection, 14 to 3, but one vote short of being able to overturn their September Yes vote, if you calculate that not enough votes were cast, which is the claim. There are 35 members, but only 17 showed up to vote. One thought, according to the account, is that some didn't show up, thinking the vote was not supposed to happen, thanks to Microsoft. So Croatia stays, kicking and screaming or wondering how did it happen, in the Approve column, despite clearly wishing not to be there:
Croatia's initial position regarding fast-tracking OOXML was "Yes, with no comments". After the BRM resolution, NB's were given time to reconsider their vote in the light of new circumstances (namely, changes to original proposition).
The second round of voting was initiated by some Croatian NB members asking for the second round, mainly because there are many changes between initial proposition and the post-BRM changes.
However, that was strongly disputed by Microsoft Croatia, who argued that there's no need for a second round, because it is not a mandatory process, and refused to vote in it, accusing commitee conveners of incompetence.
The second round of voting was held out despite the protest from Microsoft, and here are the results:
Out of 35 members of TO Z1, 17 sent a vote, and there were three votes for, and fourteen against fast-tracking OOXML, which is relative rejection rate of 82%.
Members who voted were individual experts, IBM, CLUG and HrOpen.
However, since there were less than 51% of votes, the voting process was declared invalid, and the previous vote holds.
The second round of voting was just one vote from being valid.
Author's opinion is that public (within the commitee) and loud rejection of second voting round by Microsoft has influenced other members to do the same, so instead of the usual vote of abstain, many of them avoided voting altogether, which enabled Microsoft to force CSI to keep the original vote by rendering the second voting process invalid.
So, Microsoft has won the game by tricking other members into thinking that the second round is invalid, not regular and called upon by incompetent people, resulting in invalidating regular voting process - enough to keep things the way they were.
Update on Germany: We have a translation of the article about Germany, written by DIN, so keep your wits about you as you read it:
OOXML Voting: Status and Results
The author, namely the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), is responsible for the contents of this report, and not Verivox GmbH.
(Press Office) Berlin, 28.03.2008 - Voting at the working committee of the NIA responsible for the technical evaluation of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 took place on 11 March 2008. At issue here was to determine whether the "Yes with comments" that was decided in September 2007 should stand, or whether the results of the Ballot Resolution Meeting should lead to a change to a "No" vote. As already correctly reported by unofficial sources, the vote was 15 to 4 in favour of accepting ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an ISO standard. The voting here was among the experts working on the committee.
The steering committee of the NIA was not called upon to review the technical decision of the working comittee, nor to reject it if necessary. It does not have the authority to do that. The steering committee could only consider whether, according to formal criteria, the ISO process had not been followed correctly. Given that the decision of the steering committee was not concerned with technical questions or decisions over content but rather with the regulations of the JTC1 Fast Track process, i.e. with adherence to the rules of the standardization process, DIN saw a justification for taking a position. For this reason the full time DIN representative took part in the voting, instead of refraining from voting as the regulations would require over questions of content.
Thus on March 27, 2007 [sic] the voting members of the NIA Steering Committee had to vote not on the acceptance or rejection of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as a standard, but rather, on whether the process ran according to the rules and without irregularities. By a majority of 7 votes in favour vs 6 votes against, with 7 abstentions, the Steering Committee acknowledged the process as having run fairly and therefore saw no basis to set aside the "Yes" vote of the working committee. If the majority of the Steering Committee had been of the conviction that the process and treatment of the voting over ISO/IEC DIS 29500 had not been in compliance with the rules, then the German vote at ISO/IEC would have been altered to an abstention.
DIN is a registered nonprofit association based in Berlin (DIN is the German Institute for Standardization, founded in 1917). DIN is the institution responsible for standardisation work in Germany, and represents German interests in global and european standardization organizations. So that's their story. There is also an update from Andy Updegrove that tells yet another tale, from a friend who is on the relevant DIN committee there: The official statement from DIN (in German), the German standards body, is now available (in German), and includes the official vote count as recorded. A news article (also auf Deutsch) is here. As you would see in the official statement, the committee vote was a 7 to 6 vote on, with 7 abstaining. This is slightly different from the total I reported earlier. I checked back with my original source on the reason, who reports that the manner in which the vote was calculated by DIN appears to have been (surprise) complicated. He reports in greater detail as follows:
Two People were allowed to vote in the voting booth without having voting rights, and then their vote was not counted afterwards; and DIN counts people who did not vote as "abstained". A total of 18 votes were cast, not 20, as DIN insinuates. According to DIN there were 7 "no" to a complicated question no. 2 about whether there were "severe deficiencies in the procedures, especially at the BRM" - which would then only lead to a German "abstain" at ISO -, 6 "yes" who saw severe deficiencies of the procedures, and 7 abstained according to DIN on these questions.
Even that is incorrect: 2 did not vote, which is not the same as to vote "abstain". DIN explained on its website why the steering committee could not vote "no" to DIS29500 by stating that the working group had decided with a 15 to 4 vote in favor of a YES to OOXML after the BRM. However, the working group was limited to a maximum of 20 participants, and was stuffed from the very beginning with a clear majority of pro-OOXML guys, like MS gold partners, which means that DIN did not follow its own rules to ensure a balanced composition.
Since the vote of the working group was "yes", the steering committee could only vote on the question whether the report of the chairman of that group "is acknowledged with agreement" - a biased report which did not tell about the obvious problems at the BRM. This question had the sole purpose of requiring people to offend the chairman of the working group if they voted against OOXML (i.e. to vote "abstain" at ISO). Only IF you voted not to agree on that report (i.e. were willing to offend the chairman) were you eligible to vote "yes" to the next question, which asked whether there were severe deficiencies in the procedures. Even then, beause of the way the vote had been set up, severe deficiencies in procedure would still not be an adequate reason to change the vote of the working group from YES to NO, but only to a German ABSTAIN. This and strong pressure forced several people to change their vote after having cast their vote.
It is also interesting to note that even the guy from DIN cast his vote in favor of OOXML; he could have abstained, since the committee was clearly divided and the committee was far away from consensus.
So: to the best of my knowledge, Germany woul18d have changed its vote from "approve" to "abstain" on OOXML if people had voted without pressure according to their intentions and their personal judgement, and without arbitrary restrictions on how you could vote. And the count on the second question (there were severe deficiencies of the procedures) of those who cast their vote and where eligible would have been 8 yes, 6 no, 2 abstain. If the DIN representative had not taken sides, it would have been 8:5:3. And finally, if you add back in the vote of the person who did not vote as a reaction to pressure, but who wanted to vote yes, the actual vote on the second question would have been 9:5:3.
Update April 18, 2007: There is now a first-person account by Steve Pepper, "The Norway Vote - What Really Happened" and it's even worse than we heard: I was the Chairman of the Norwegian mirror committee for SC34 (K185) for 13 years until resigning a couple of weeks ago in protest against Standard Norway’s decision to vote Yes. On the other hand, I was present throughout the whole process and have more first-hand knowledge of what went on than anyone (excepting two employees of Standard Norway). Here I describe the fateful meeting on Friday March 28. More background will follow.
The meeting started at 10 and we spent an hour on other business before proceeding to the main agenda item: reviewing Ecma’s responses to the comments that accompanied our No vote in the August DIS ballot. I led the first part of the meeting and then handed over to the VP of Standard Norway for the last part, as I had done on previous occasions when OOXML was under discussion.
K185 meeting, Friday March 28 2008There were nearly 30 people present: three employees of Standard Norway (the VP, the committee secretary, and the JTC1 representative); the rest were technical experts. The VP opened by declaring that our only purpose was to discuss the comment responses and decide whether they had been addressed to our satisfaction. If so, Norway’s vote would change from No to Yes. I suggested that we should also take account of changes made at the BRM and base our decision on a total assessment. The VP did not disagree, but insisted that the discussion should focus on the comments. He also made it clear that the goal was to achieve consensus and that there would not be any voting.
The next four hours were spent going through the 12 comments submitted by Norway. My tally of the final result was as follows:
Consensus that the comment had been satisfactorily resolved: 2 comments.
Consensus that the comment had not been satisfactorily resolved: 2 comments.
No consensus that the comment had been satisfactorily resolved: 8 comments.
Regarding those last 8 comments, there was a roughly 80/20 split between those who were dissatisfied and those who were satisfied. (Since there was no voting, this is just an estimate, but it’s pretty accurate.) There was not even a shadow of consensus that the comments as a whole had been satisfactorily addressed and I naturally assumed the No vote would stand.
But lo… at this point, the “rules” were changed. The VP asserted that “Ecma has clearly made steps in the right direction.” The most important thing now was to ensure that OOXML came under ISO’s control so that it could be “further improved”. However, the committee was not allowed to discuss this.
The VP thereupon declared that there was no consensus, so the decision would be taken by Standard Norway.
Halfway through the proceedings, a committee member had asked for (and received) assurance that the Chairman would take part in the final decision, as he had for the DIS vote back in August. It now transpired that the BRM participants had also been invited to stay behind. 23 people were therefore dismissed and we were down to seven. In addition to Standard Norway’s three, there were four “experts”: Microsoft Norway’s chief lobbyist, a guy from StatoilHydro (national oil company; big MS Office user), a K185 old-timer, and me. In one fell swoop the balance of forces had changed from 80/20 to 50/50 and the remaining experts discussed back and forth for 20 minutes or so without reaching any agreement.
The VP thereupon declared that there was still no consensus, so the decision would be taken by Standard Norway.
The experts were dismissed and the VP asked the opinion of the Secretary (who said “Yes”) and the JTC1 rep (who said “No”).
The VP thereupon declared that there was still no consensus, so the decision would be taken by him.
And his decision was to vote Yes.
So this one bureaucrat, a man who by his own admission had no understanding of the technical issues, had chosen to ignore the advice of his Chairman, of 80% of his technical experts, and of 100% of the K185 old-timers. For the Chairman, only one course of action was possible.
That’s the story.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
Please make links clicky
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OOXML Vote Tracker and Calculation Guide - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Open Source Business Model -- Using Software Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- OT - Off topic thread here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Some light relief ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- New Firefox 2.0.0.13 - Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: NeilG on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: dahnielson on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:12 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Pygame - Authored by: Zartan on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- XO Logo - Authored by: Weeble on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 01:16 AM EDT
- XO Logo - Authored by: Ptraci on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: zcat on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: davcefai on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: giskard on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- Advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:13 AM EDT
- Thanks to all, some really great suggestions - Authored by: NeilG on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- New ISO Artwork - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- New ISO Artwork - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:08 PM EDT
- People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Which OS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Asking a Judge to Save the World - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- US antitrust officials pledge tough enforcement as European counterpart promises to ease up - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Article from 1999: "Alternate View Of The Microsoft Monopoly" - Authored by: thombone on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- It Passed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 11:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
As if PJ makes any eh?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
| Please indicate which newspick to are referring to in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
| So we can ignore you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
How does MS expect this garbage to make it past the European courts? This is
out and out fraud.
---
This space intentionally left blank.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Putrefaction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: Nick_UK on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Couldn't Fix The Brakes, So They Made The Horn Louder - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Probably a very stupid question, but Ill ask it anyway :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- The worst *is* that expectation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- OOXML Vote: MS has Hidden Agenda - Authored by: stomfi on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Maybe I have missed it, but it would be really great to hear some official word
out of ISO about how they feel about all of this; to say this is shocking is an
understatement for me, it is almost as if Microsoft does not care if people know
what they are doing, as long as it works.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
This is a translation of the story in German mentioned by
PJ. Warning: As the Verivox website itself disclaims, this
report was written by the DIN themselves, and therefore may be
biased.
http://www.verivox.de/News/ArticleDetails.asp?aid=78038&
pm=1
OOXML Voting: Status and Results
The author, namely
the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), is responsible for the contents
of this report, and not Verivox GmbH.
(Press Office) Berlin, 28.03.2008
- Voting at the working committee of the NIA responsible for the technical
evaluation of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 took place on 11 March 2008. At issue here was
to determine whether the "Yes with comments" that was decided in September 2007
should stand, or whether the results of the Ballot Resolution Meeting should
lead to a change to a "No" vote. As already correctly reported by unofficial
sources, the vote was 15 to 4 in favour of accepting ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an ISO
standard. The voting here was among the experts working on the
committee.
The steering committee of the NIA was not called upon to
review the technical decision of the working comittee, nor to reject it if
necessary. It does not have the authority to do that. The steering committee
could only consider whether, according to formal criteria, the ISO process had
not been followed correctly. Given that the decision of the steering committee
was not concerned with technical questions or decisions over content but rather
with the regulations of the JTC1 Fast Track process, i.e. with adherence to the
rules of the standardization process, DIN saw a justification for taking a
position. For this reason the full time DIN representative took part in the
voting, instead of refraining from voting as the regulations would require over
questions of content.
Thus on March 27, 2007 [sic] the voting members of
the NIA Steering Committee had to vote not on the acceptance or rejection of
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as a standard, but rather, on whether the process ran
according to the rules and without irregularities. By a majority of 7 votes in
favour vs 6 votes against, with 7 abstentions, the Steering Committee
acknowledged the process as having run fairly and therefore saw no basis to set
aside the "Yes" vote of the working committee. If the majority of the Steering
Committee had been of the conviction that the process and treatment of the
voting over ISO/IEC DIS 29500 had not been in compliance with the rules, then
the German vote at ISO/IEC would have been altered to an abstention.
DIN
is a registered nonprofit association based in Berlin (DIN is the German
Institute for Standardization, founded in 1917). DIN is the institution
responsible for standardisation work in Germany, and represents German interests
in global and european standardization organizations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another disgrace - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Reading the reports of so many irregularities during this process reminds me of
viewing/listening to voting irregularities in 3rd world dictatorships (and
obviously without the violence).
Perhaps the ISO will in future need independent electoral scrutineers to ensure
that voting is free and fair...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SteveS on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
I'm looking at this and I really don't see why MS is working sooo hard to get
this through. Perhaps they are looking to discredit anything "Open"
(software and standards) on the whole.
"See it's broken! Don't trust them!"
"Look they are unable to control even their own processes. How can you
trust them to care for your needs and keep your standards uncorrupted by special
interest groups... Only we are powerful enough to do it.. See what we were able
to do here!"
Or maybe MS is just a big bully and they can't stand to be told what to do.
Whatever... Just fed up with the whole smelly mess...
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
21 persons: their time; their work; their money; their rights. Wasted!
What a farce! That person that said it was a difficult decision has some nerve.
There can be only one outcome. Change the rules, dismiss opponents, stack
committees, inverse vote results (so that a No vote is counted as an Yes), make
it impossible to vote No, and so on. Every kind of vote fraud technique is used
and abused.
Is this a general trend? We will all pretend that has happen? Doesn't the rules
matter anymore?
What now ISO? Will you shake your shoulders and say it's the cost of doing
business?
Every time one this persons justify their actions by saying that "how
important OOXML is" and "is important to make part of the process to
develop and improve OOXML" (like that would be possible or they even care)
that just takes me to the point of trowing up!
They could at least come up with better (or at least different excuses). Have
you notice how they say the same thing? They say the same thing with almost
exactly the same words. That's truly amazing.
Again... WHAT A FARCE![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: prayforwind on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
I thought it was to be all said & done by Thursday 27th of March. What
happened?
---
jabber me: burySCO@jabber.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
To add to the list of irregularities, I think they have not yet updated the
standard document with the results of the BRM. I am of this opinion because I
have not seen anywhere a mention that such update did occur and every blog post
I have seen says it did not occur. NBs that approve are now writing a blank
check to the Editor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
| Funny to note that software can stink. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Not to much to say than "I told you so". Microsoft will NEVER change
their behaviour. They don't intend to and they think they act perfectly right
and will claim it as blasting victory.
But now, when someone will ask me, why I disrespect Microsoft, I won't have to
think twice.
I think it is not worth to waste our energy on emotions. Let's report all
necessary stuff to legal powers, and let's keep work on promotion of free
sofware, open source and truly open standards, like ODF and ISO standartised
PDF.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Deja vu - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 08:51 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
That Microsoft is prepared to risk so much damage to its reputation to get
MSOOXML approved, shows how important it is. Nothing less than the MS Office
monopoly is at stake. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
| My dear friends. I can't see anything surprising in fascist behaviour of so many
standardization bodies in Europe. Have you forgotten how much money Microsoft
dropped on these guys lately?
Do you really think Microsoft would pay a fine
that high to the EU without any reward for it? The fine is just the most easy
way to whitewash the bribe money!
You should rather investigate what
happend to these fines? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
"We made this decision because we wish to be within the further development
of the standard. It gives us an opportunity to influence what happens."
I've seen this exact same comment in so many articles from so many countries,
that it has to be straight from Microsoft.
If the standard is going to be approved or not, everyone has a voice in the
development of the standard as long as it is in the standards process. There is
more voice BEFORE the standard is approved than there is AFTER it is approved.
They make it sound like payola, the way they put it. 'If I vote the right way,
then Microsoft will listen to me.'
So why have all these supposedly sane people suddenly picked up the same sound
bite ? It boggles the imagination!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
None of which matters. ISO doesn't get into the details of how national bodies
run themselves, it is only concerned with how they vote. End of story.
It's like trying to claim that this year's Presidential elections in the USA
should be rescinded and run again on the grounds that some voters hit the wrong
buttons by mistake.
Ain't gonna happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
I would hope that all these committee members have communicated their concerns
to ISO.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
FWIW, Updegrove reports that UK and Ireland switched from NO to YES. He didn't
provide a link.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
I thought I will be outraged, however I am very calm. Now I see my reason why I
am here, in open source and free software community, why I think totally
different than people who work for Microsoft and similar companies.
Our wishes and way are just, and it is not subjective. Microsoft are clearly an
enemy here and from now on I will treat it like one.
Good one Bill, you earned very powerful enemy today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
With moves like this, I do not doubt that we will be finding MS orchastrating
the SCO fiasco. They have NO ethics at all.
Combine this possible discovery with EU antitrust action on this ISO issue and
the slide of the MS brand from #1 in 1996 to 59th last year, and we may see MS
relegated to a Borland status before we know it. (within 10 years, a short time
to bring down one of the largest companies with a entrenced user base)
The fall of MS will seem like a slow transition and not really noticable, then
BAM, most people(even investors) will be saying ... We not see this coming, it
started so slow. But the reality is that it took a lot of time to put all the
little pieces of the puzzle in place. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Team, here's just another wild idea...
Let's imagine a scenario in which Microsoft manages to bull-dozer OOXML into
being an ISO standard, either via this present fast-track process or by the
longer and 'more carefully reasoned' approach.
What, exactly, does this gain them?
To cut to the chase...
Let's imagine that OOXML has become ratified. Now, instead of being in a
situation in which 100% of the Office File Format was sooper seekret and
proprietary, now a large portion [I'm going to make this up, but let's say
95-98%] is in the public domain in the form of the barely understandable ISO
Standard.
So what?
All Microsoft have done is concede a huge part of their proprietary hold over
file formats in an attempt to win a pull-through and defeat governments and
public sector organisations *before* they mandated "Open Standards".
But in so doing have they painted themselves into a corner?
By publishing the OOXML specification, Microsoft have now made it easier than
ever for competitors and the industry to spot when they are making fast moves
with file formats. By going out and publicly claiming to follow an "open
standard" they have succeeded in calling attention to themselves. So when
they break their own standard with an "upgrade" [ and note, I am
saying when, as opposed to "if"] it will just be that little bit
easier for the rest of the industry to spot them doing so.
Doubtless they have thought this one through and have a selection of aces tucked
away up their sleeve. But the more I think about it, the more suspicious I
become that this move - a somewhat desperate act to stop repeats of the CoM
"Open Standard" push - might actually backfire in a big way.
If there is any validity in this theory, what can we do to make sure that any
such "tweaks" by MS come to light?
And I do hope that PJ offers to send the EU Commission a complete dossier on
everything that she has found to date...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
Isn't it curious that as the process goes on objections get louder but then
authority steps in and overrides them? It reminds me so much of the
Eurovision
Song Contest, where countries vote in support of their neighbours. Here we
see
votes being cast "in the national interest" against a tide of technical
objections.
Countries who use Office extensively need this to be a
standard
however bad it is now, so they can archive their data in it. Countries
like
China
and India, who had never been in the past able to afford many
legitimate
copies
of Office vote No. Don't forget that the EU
Commission initially
suggested to
Microsoft to standardise their Office
formats - it wasn't their idea. My
guess is
that if they do end up losing,
Microsoft will just drop the whole idea. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
When do we start hearing the results?
---
This space intentionally left blank.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
Here:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog
Andy says:
Updated: Unless thus-far unannounced votes that were formerly
"approve" or "abstain" switch to "disapprove," it
appears that OOXML will be approved. See details in the cumulative
"updates" section below[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
Updated: Unless thus-far unannounced votes that were formerly
"approve" or "abstain" switch to "disapprove," it appears that OOXML will be
approved. See details in the cumulative "updates" section
below
standardsblog
Msft wins again. I can not remember a time
that msft lost something that msft considered really important. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
The midnight bells of Geneva (ISO HQ) are not yet echoed
by the bells of Den Hague (International Court of Justice)
but in these days of rampant oligarchy John Donne's words
still ring true.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
Why should msft care if the groklaw crowd knows that msft is corrupt? Msft has
hundreds of millions of customers, less than 1% of msft customers know about
this, or would care anyway.
I suppose that's why msft is not really even shy about the corruption. How many
people even know about the ISO? Or OOXML?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
Being from Sweden I feel ashamed of 'our' own conduct, but thankfully 'we'
'saved' our face because 'some' had voted 'Yes', twice. The votes were abstained
because of those 'irregularities'.
I feel also angry, on behalf of all Norwegians, who also were robbed from a
decent vote by irregularities by their authorities too!
It was blatantly reported about and discussed in public, ALL OVER
SCANDINAVIA!!!
No one involved with this in Norway could say they have not heard about the
misconducts by the Yes-camp in Sweden...
I don't know much about the law anywhere, but it indeed sounds like illegal
behavior. Wonder what the the Norwegian word for the Swedish word
"bestickning" (bribes) is, and if it would be time for the Norway
Police to investigate any possible cases.
Unfortunately, Microsoft Sweden already admitted misconduct and admitted and
apologized that 'some rogue employee' has made unsanctioned calls in order to
influence the voting...
Thinking of it, do apologies of admitted misconducts make it less illegal,
anywhere?
Sad day, it seems.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
Despite what you may think, or how it seems right now, I think
it's rare that any organization will tolerate the kind of disrespect
and contempt that Microsoft has shown the ISO.
Yes, I will be genuinely surprised if ISO simply rolls over. I think
it's rare for any organization to simply commit suicide.
Beyond ISO, I don't think criminal anti-trust actions are out of the
question in Europe, no matter where the offenses occurred. I do
think another large fine will be irrelevant. Criminal charges or other
non-monetary steps need to be taken.
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., there is a legal
docrtine called public policy. It's not in the statutes, and it's not in
the Constitution. But one example is that, say, in a divorce case,
a wife and children will not be left destitute, regardless of what
any statute may say or not say.
The conduct of Microsoft in this process would be a candidate
for a "public policy" ruling by ISO, regardless of what the rules
or other technicalities say.
Well, we'll find out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
| Wrong World !!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
While I respect the notion that you stick to what you know, I suspect that PJ's
community will have to tackle critical tech issues from a political/governance
point of view.
The ISO voting National Bodies, currently given a free hand from the Nations
that they "represent", such as ANSI/INCITS for the USA, must be made
more accountable to the citizens of the nations that give them all of this
power.
Some of the people that know and care are right here at groklaw. So, to have an
impact on technology-meets community/citizens vs vendors fight over leverage to
control consumers, we will need to impact civil politics more then in the
past.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thombone on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
They do.
WHEN is something going to actually be done about this criminal corporation?
It just burns me up that again and again, they can get away with these things
and not even governments can seem to stop them.
It also scares me greatly that a corporation can just ignore laws, rules,
procedures, etc. with seeming impunity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zcat on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
| ‘Standards New Zealand has confirmed its negative vote for
the adoption of the OOXML specification as an ISO/IEC international Standard’,
says Debbie Chin, Chief Executive, Standards New Zealand.
W00T!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
Looks like Steve B. and Billie G. are gaming the "Officials" with the
Jeffersons!
Pony up Y'all.
Toodles
PS.
Q: How will M$ pay-off YH after all this spending?
A: Treasuries! i.e. US Bonds. Thank you Mr. Paulson![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nonsense! - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:02 AM EDT
- Nonsense! - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Nonsense! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 11:03 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
I'm just wondering how much money was stuffed into brown paper bags and handed
out for being good little puppies?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
This section provides a concise overview of ISO's best known management system
standards and their impact on the world.
In brief
The ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 families are among ISO's best known standards ever.
ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001 (1996 and 2004 versions) are implemented by over a
million organizations in 161 countries.
The ISO 9000 family addresses "quality management". This means what
the organization does to fulfill:
* the customer's quality requirements, and
* applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to
* enhance customer satisfaction, and
* achieve continual improvement of its performance in pursuit of these
objectives. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: danielpf on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:40 AM EDT |
It could be the moment to write polite personal letters to the headquarters of
ISO.
The address is:
President, Mr. Håkan Murby
Vice-President, Dr. George Arnold
Vice-President, Mr. Jacob Holmblad
Treasurer, Mr. Julien Pitton
Secretary-General, Mr. Alan Bryden
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse,
Case postale 56
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Telephone +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 733 34 30
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: reiisi on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
| He
re is what I've been worried about since last
summer. I couldn't put it into
words, but an AC here has.
Gates is clearly
playing hardball now.
It's time for us to fight back with the only thing that
can break his hold. Learn
how to use raw text and simple markup and teach your
friends. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:29 AM EDT |
Remember that
Microsoft memo that surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation?
The one about how to stack a panel discussion at conferences so it would be
favorable to Microsoft? The key was to get to be the
moderator.
This is a pretty serious statement. "Being the
moderator" means a foreign multinational manages to seize control of a public
service function to alter the official position of the country in matters of
international commerce to foster its interest at the expense of the interests of
the country.
In countries where national security is more than a joke, there
are institutions meant to prevent that sort of things. I wonder what would
happen if the relevant intelligence services take note of these events?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: futureweaver on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
BERR is the gov't dept that sponsors and pays for the standards activities of
BSI. There's a webpage about this on the BERR site.
From one document there, "THE PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN
THE U.K.
IN STANDARDISATION", dated 2000:
19. If it believes it
is in a position to do so, a company may seek to impose its own
private
‘standards’ on the market, either by itself or with a cartel. If
successful, this can lead to a
damaging concentration of economic power and,
ultimately, a need for competition
authorities or the courts to intervene to
prevent abuse of a dominant position. (The
concern of the US anti-trust
authorities with the activities of Microsoft might be thought of
in this
light) [my emphasis].
20. A strong and effective standards body
can help to make such an eventuality less likely,
by increasing the relative
attraction of the public standards route. BSI fulfils this role, by
providing an
efficient facilitation service to suppliers / producers. However, while it
is
necessary for BSI to be responsive to suppliers’ / producers’ requirements
that is not
sufficient, because there could still be a tendency towards
under-provision of standards,
and for interested parties other than suppliers /
producers to be under-represented or
excluded from the standardisation process.
Public policy seeks to redress the balance
by:
• The objects and other terms
of BSI’s Royal Charter, which sets the development
of standards as BSI’s primary
object;
• A Memorandum of Understanding between BSI and DTI, which spells
out more
fully what BSI is expected to do in fulfilment of its Charter
obligations in respect of
the key public policy dimension to
standardisation;
• Directing DTI’s contribution to BSI’s funding towards
programmes which help
consumer and other interests to participate in
standardisation and, more
generally, which help BSI achieve fully representative
consensus standards.
Given that 8 years on the courts have indeed
intervened and Microsoft has not only been found guilty of breaching competition
law but fined for ignoring the verdict, the burden on BSI to avoid the problems
described is heavy, and (assuming the UK vote has indeed changed) it will need
to explain how it reached its decision and how that decision meets these
requirements.
The "Economics of standards" report (also dated 2000) on the
same page predicts many of the problems that have arisen, for
example:
There is a mismatch between the rate of innovation, the
requirements
for rapid standardization on the part of suppliers and the need for
quality
standardization on the part of empowered customers. Speeding up the
standardization
process is not necessarily the right answer to this
mismatch.
Uneven representation in the standardization process can lead
to shortsighted
standards.
There is doubt that a producer led
standardization process can give full
account to customer
interests.
This ISO process may well have formally precluded the
consideration of wider economic and IPR factors, but the NB ones didn't and
given this sort of guidance BSI could well be regarded as delinquent if it
failed to take these factors properly into account.FoI request, anyone? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 07:37 AM EDT |
| Through hook and by crook, the stench of MSOOXML appears to have been dumped
upon the world. The sensible focus upon technical issues was deliberately and
systematically kicked aside to be replaced by a senseless, politicized, global
campaign of bribery, misinformation, rules manipulation and influence peddling
that the most contemptible, corrupt politicians can only dream about.
The
failure to heed the many warnings of contradictions, ambiguities and downright
technically wrong behavior enshrined in the unwieldy body of the fraud will
disrupt communications and impose costs upon any who use it and any who are
forced to deal with the documents the former produce. The expense of conversion
from the single vendor's legacy of mistakes and disdain for interoperable, true
standards into archival quality documents will be ongoing for as long as the
disruptive, internally inconsistent specification is in use.
If this
fraudulent "standard" is actually graced with publication by ISO, it will not
elevate MSOOXML to the level of typical standards crafted by the largely
under-acknowledged work of meticulous people for the benefit of the world, it
will, instead, drag that formerly respected body down into the muck from which
the fraud was spawned.
Perhaps shutting down the global network for a day
would be a fitting memorial for the day the standards died. Something global
should mark the end of the transition from a world of technical deliberation
and consensus to a world of labels purchased with deceitful
collaboration.
---
-- grouch
"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
All of these changes to voting regulations in country after country, all in a
blatantly obvious effort to get OOXML approved as an ISO standard regardless of
serious technical and legal concerns, remind me of a line from Star Wars-The
Empire Strikes Back:
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
The ISO has been hijacked by Microsoft. They deserve to have many of their top
executives thrown in prison for that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TedSwart on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
PJ sums it up all so very elegantly in one sentence:
"One thing is certain. Unless ISO steps up and fixes this mess, it will
lose the world's respect, and rightly so. Either the rules mean something, or
they don't, but if they don't standards don't mean anything either."
Surely there must be some high ups in ISO who recognize that decency and fair
mindedness -- and simply following their own rules -- obligate them to recognize
that there are no grounds whatsoever for fast tracking MSOOXML and very few
grounds for entertaining the possibility of slow tracking it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kedens on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
If the ISO belongs to Microsoft and they approve of OOXML then it's Microsoft
alone that should be the only corporate sponsor. If companies like IBM, Sun, HP,
and Oracle all decided not to have anything to do with the ISO and made public
statements about their withdrawal then a new standards group could be formed and
the ISO could just go away. I encourage everyone to write to the corporations
involved and tell them not to waste their time or money supporting the ISO if
the OOXML standard is passed in the manner that it likely will be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
I see a lot of people making comments to the effect that the EU is somehow going
to rectify any irregularities in the ISO voting process or that they are going
to somehow undo the ISO standardization of OOXML (if it were to be approved).
None of these things are going to happen. The only thing the EU can do is to
fine Microsoft some more money, which Microsoft probably will be more than happy
to pay to get OOXML standardized. So lets be clear, EU does not have the power
to stop OOXML from becoming an ISO standard (unless you know something I don't,
in which case I would like to be enlightened).
/JB
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EU can not stop OOXML - Authored by: John Hasler on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- EU can not stop OOXML - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- But there is something they can do! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- But there is something they can do! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- But there is something they can do! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: John Hasler on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 06:41 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 08:03 AM EDT
- No - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- No - Authored by: lukep on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- But there is something they can do! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- But there is something they can do! - Authored by: TedSwart on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 08:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
Sorry about this repost, but I feel it's important:
Come morning, I'll leave a tip with the Norwegian financial crimes division of
the national police, asking them to investigate both the standards body _and_
the individuals that are behind this farce, asking them to look into their
financial transactions of late, asking them to formally investigate the
motivations for overriding and abusing the standards process. Why, you could do
so too: Send a mail to desken@okokrim.no and stand firmly behind decent people
like Håkon Wium Lie and Steven Pepper!
*pnd*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
Updegrove and
OpenMalaysia are reporting that the UK changed its vote to
a Yes, which with the
previously-reported fraudulent Norwegian Yes, means that Microsoft has won. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zr on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
In the recent maelstrom of the blogs on the topic of OOXML, I've been
impressed with the attempt
at objectivity shown by Patrick Durusau, ODF
editor. Having read the recent
comments here, I recommend his A Non-
Standard
Guide to Standards Behavior as essential reading. ---
Don't follow
leaders, watch the parkin' meters. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
In fact the DIN- secretary who was attending the meeting for scribble down the
meeting minutes was the person to finalize the German vote. This one smells
fishy. But the German Government seems to be quite happy with the decision as
they stay silent even as they have been informed by prominet politicians like
the Major of Munich. I have my doubts that a secretary would have made a
decision like this without approvement from his/her superiours in the Ministry
of Commerce & Economics. Just for those who are not familiar with German
politics. The former Siemens CEO and later supervisory board chairman, who had
to resign because of all these Siemens bribery stories is still the preferred
consultant for Chancellor Merkel. I guess they are establishing a new way of
democracy over here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 09:54 PM EDT |
I believe ISO wants this controversy to go away. They should realise that if
they allow this travesty to stand, the controversy will not go away. The
processes in a number of countries will be investigated and those investigations
will propagate the controversy into the future. It is possible that courts in
some places may even step in and order the vote overturned. If this results in
the outcome being reversed, what will the ISO do?
Surely a standard cannot rest on such a shaky foundation - that it might be
invalidated by what a court does at some time in teh future. This is an
organisation that declares that it operates by consensus. Where is the
consensus? I don't see it.
It is not too late for the ISO to remove the proposal from the fast track even
at this stage on the grounds that the fast track procedure did not result in
consensus regardless of the outcome of the vote. Such an action would go a very
long way towards restoring credibility to the ISO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
This is ridiculous. If there's any truth to these allegations, the ISO process
has been completely subverted; the integrity of the standard's body
compromised.
The whole thing just has be shaking my head in disbelief.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 30 2008 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
| Word is out that Australia maintains its abstain
vote.
Looking at their reasons for abstaining, I wonder why they didn't vote
no? They clearly have an informed opinion that the standard is not suitable for
the Fast Track and there are too many unresolved issues.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
Speak loud and clear that you don't tolerate this
garbage and do something
to make sure the situation gets fixed. It's not that
difficult!
If
it's "not that difficult" to "make sure the situation gets fixed", then why
haven't you done it?
It is extremely difficult to win a political battle
against an opponent which has a campaigning budget of several billion dollars,
and which is unrestrained by considerations of law or morality. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 02:40 AM EDT |
M$ and ISO, well the spotlight is on, let M$ and its partners have their show,
in the end, they lose.
'they owe us a paycheck' Ballmer plan, for open source software and
interoperability. M$ is hoping to win when the weather gets better, too bad
that it isn't.
Seriously folks, while frusterating, keep up the good reporting PJ, and others,
keep the faith.
ISO time has come, been coming all along, this just puts the spotlight on it as
well. A good thing, change is needed.
If you want to repeal a law/process, enforce it strictly. Open-Source desktop
and business software, here we come!
M$ has hurt the credibility of the USA. It has also shown to the world, how
weak and petty minded the USA has become. Not good, for a service based economy
that depends upon the world.
One has to love Ballmer, he sure is helping change the USA, for better and for
worse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 04:49 AM EDT |
Blatant corruption. The break-down of decency. ...
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 04:51 AM EDT |
Microsoft are at least managing to generate bad press about themselves.
Hopefully, this will start to get a wider audience than the techies that are
following this.
Microsoft's brand has been plummeting of late, Vista has a bad reputation (even
among my none techie friends).
It may be that by using these tactics, which are attracting wide publicity, that
Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot. Could it be they are making their
own coffin? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 06:30 AM EDT |
In my house, there is a book. I paid many hundreds of dollars for this book, in
my line of work. It has more than 2500 pages, on bible paper. In it, there is
exactly one page describing the screw threads of a light bulb. It does not say
anything about what brand of light bulb I should buy or much else. I can buy any
brand as time and money allows, and be fairly assured that it will work as
intended.
If Microsoft wants to be ubiquitous then they will learn how to play by the
rules instead of trying to make or bend the rules, just IMHO.
In the words of Paul Tomblin at the Scarey Devil Monastery (AKA
alt.sysadmin.recovery) "Microsoft follows standards like fish follow
migrating caribou"
Hi grouch!
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
