|
|
| Ubersoft on ISO, "voting irregularities", and Groklaw |
 |
|
Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:27 AM EDT
|
This cartoon is so funny to me, and happily it's under a Creative Commons license, so I can share it here with you and make you laugh too. Thank you so much, Ubersoft! Don't miss the details. I love the last Breaking News line: "SCO says, 'Was that so wrong?' 'Yes,' Judge replies." And Ubersoft getting ISO to call Ubersoft Marketing Language a standard. So many layers. I discern someone is reading Groklaw, comments and all.
: D Speaking of irregularities, here's some info on the EU Commission investigation from Richard Koman. Check out the picture of OOXML. In volumes. Stacked on the desk. It's pretty funny too. And that is *before* they added thousands more pages of editing, I think. And Paul Mellor at ComputerWorld has snips from the letter the EU Commission sent to "national divisions of the ISO ... in Europe". Here's what they want to hear about: "In your opinion, have there been any irregularities or attempts to influence the debate or vote on the ECMA 376 proposal as regards your organisation? If so please provide details and any relevant facts," the Commission wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by IDG News Service. ECMA 376 is the title under which Microsoft submitted OOXML for consideration by the ISO. They should ask some presidents of countries too, methinks. And some technical and advisory committees. Finally, Open Malaysia Blog has some letters explaining why some voted the way they did in the Philippines.
And now, Ubersoft:
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
Just in case.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
Please, don't forget to quote the article.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
As usual.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sony BMG busted for software piracy! - Authored by: cm16 on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:45 AM EDT
- SNCP connections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- Link - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- Chance to ask the head of Intel questions - Authored by: jeevesbond on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:16 AM EDT
- Has anyone heard of this analyst? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:37 AM EDT
- bonuses aren't permitted under stricter standard that became effective in October 2005 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- Only? - Authored by: ore on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- Vista, an Electricity Guzzler (SUV of Operating Systems)! Where is OLPC XO corporate desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:09 AM EDT
- Asus Eee - Embrace, extend, extinguish? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:49 AM EDT
- Microsoft's security response leaves Apple lagging - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Firefox 3.0 Beta 5 out now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 08:30 AM EDT
- MS EULA costs them in India - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Patents As Weapons Redux: The Gibson/Activision Lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- ISO~Irreparably Sans Objectivity - Authored by: fuego451 on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Dave Cameron pledges to Open Source UK.gov - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- it's at times like these that i really miss hst - Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- Request: Could someone edit Steve Ballmers face over the Wizard's in this video - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- SUN will support Ubuntu! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- Proposed SMS standard - Authored by: PM on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Wanted: Edible Linux decorations for Cakes, Cookies - for Promotion at work or LUG events - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Google Docs now available offline - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Another article - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
To NBs, yeah right. I mean is this letter something that could
be quietly slipped to one side and answered by a bought chair?
Or at the other extreme does it require individual notarised
replies from every member of the board? Now everybody can
hear the siren screaming, I expect there are shipments of
hard hats and asbestos jackets going out of Redmond.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
You have learned from Groklaw and other sources what a travesty this is. Go
now to the zdnet threads. Frequent the Infoworld threads. You have the quotes
from Comes Vs. Microsoft. You know what this does to the credibility of
ISO.
There is a strong disinformation campaign going on right now in the
"less technical" forums to sway the opinion of the common man. Get out there
and get the truth in front of the people if you want to do some good with what
you know. There must be no corner of the Internet that astroturfers dare to
tread without opposition.
GO! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
| People have been talking about 'the credibility of ISO' but what do all those
people who work on ISO standards that have no connection with this fiasco
think?
ISO have many standards: some are of vital importance, others merely
convenient, and some which have become so debased by misuse as to be meaningless
(example).
Those who work on the first two categories might be rightfully angry at
the events surrounding the 'approval' of MSOOXML. On the other hand, they may
not have even noticed.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin
from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:52 AM EDT |
Well, they are kind enough to tell us in this article in the Redmond Channel
Partner--
'Of course, we're sure that Microsoft, uh, strongly encouraged a few delegates
from a few nations to change their votes -- which lots of delegates did. And,
really, OOXML's acceptance isn't all that big of a deal for partners and users,
practically speaking; after all, Microsoft document formats are also de facto
standards.
But now, all of those government agencies charged with implementing
standards-based computing are free to turn away from open source and run back to
sweet mama Microsoft if they so choose. And whatever momentum open source had
gained by taking the standards route in IT departments has certainly slowed --
if not come to a screeching halt.'
Something tells me that someone is going to regret this one in the morning.
http://rcpmag.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=2075[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:54 AM EDT |
Well, have what fun you can right now, but you all seem to think
that Microsoft's success with bribery in the OOXML process is
a one-time thing. It isn't. It's just the beginning.
Bill Gates' calls to presidents proves he is willing to subvert the
laws of every country in the world. Who will prove him wrong?
We can't fault the Europeans. After all, it started right here in
the U.S. and continues with the cardboard cutout of an antitrust
settlement that is maintained for the sake of appearance.
And appearances will be kept. The Roman Senate was a huge
convenience to the emperors at first. In fact, the Senate
continued for another hundred years or so after the fall of
the western empire. But Justinian just ignored the Senate,
as his predecessors had. He just issued his own code.
I think the Rubicon has been crossed. The republic is dead,
though its forms will be maintained.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd be delighted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
ok your a standard so yousay. lets think about it. Other products are easier to
use wiht many others, sooo who fraking cares what MS does let have the stupid
stamp. Smart countries and IT dept's will know better, and if they want to save
there
tax payers cash ( costing canada schools 100$ per pc as an example ) then you
will use the opensource and free as in TOTALLY free.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: no3xml on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
If you feel like reaching out and touching someone yourself (like your
local
standards organisation for example) then hopefully this will help:
ISO OOXML
Scoreboard and
Contacts
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?
key=pehgYB0ckQN9s3cD9rucCOw)
I think it
couldn't hurt for them to get some polite, carefully constructed
questions
about their handling of the issue (or congratulations for those who
did the
right thing).
The spreadsheet itself is quite clever in that it updates
the result (taking
into account O-Member and P-Member rules and abstentions) so
you can do
some hypotheticals with it (eg 'What if France didn't swap No to
Abstain and
Norway said No').
Mail me at no3xml-at-gmail if you want
the original (in
OpenDocument format of course!).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
Hey all :)
Firstly a thank you to PJ for the kind comments in her
earlier article :)
Secondly an apology for the promised blog about unixware
not materialising yet - we are about to release a new version of our product and
my time is being taken up by other matters in the office.
Thirdly as
mentioned in my blog entry I have emailed Mr Pugh and my local MP. The letter is
below (I forwarded this to Mr. Pugh along with a personal statement of support
for his position):
Dear Richard Ottaway,
You may, or may
not in which case I hope to enlighten you, be aware of recent events in the
world of standardisation. Your colleague, Mr John Pugh, has stated that he
intends to table the following question:
“Can the Minister reassure me
that the British Standards Institute that operates as our National Body under a
memorandum of understanding from the Government will not change its stance on
the currently unavailable text for the proposed standardisation of OOXML without
proper consultation.”
May I urge that the BSI uphold its admirable
principles and does not approve DIS29500 in its present form.“
The
abbreviated history is as follows. Back in November 2005 the OASIS group had
their draft for standardisation of document formats ratified by ISO/IEC as
IS26300 and the technical world celebrated that there would be a vendor neutral
format to store documents in... the end of vendor lock-in! Microsoft, to a lack
of general surprise, elected to convince ECMA to create a technical committee to
document their new XML format in December 2005 rather than make use of this new
ISO standard.
Fast forward to May 2007 and this new document (ECMA-376) was
submitted to ISO SC34 and the sub-committee JTC1 received it for review. Fast
forward again to September 2007 and ECMA was disapproved as an ISO standard. Our
own national body, BSI, submitted over 600 comments of things to be changed - a
huge amount given that this was already meant to be a standard under ECMA. Fast
forward to last week.... The BSI gave their approval ECMA-376 to be an ISO
standard without stating their intentions why. This seems very odd given that
not all the comments could have been resolved at the international meeting in
February.
Please note that this is very abbreviated and for the full
story please check my blog entry
located:
http://www.tideway.com/community/blog-post/how-to-buy-a-standard-in-10-
days/
There are also other websites such as www.groklaw.net and
www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/ that can give you a fuller
picture.
My purpose for writing to you is to request your position on
this matter, to request your position on the BSI holding our national body
status given that it is unsure whether they have our nation's interests at heart
on this matter and to ask whether you will lend your support to your colleague
to have this parliamentary question answered.
Note that it is not too
late to find out what the BSI is up to. There are two months for complaints to
be lodged with ISO from national bodies with regards to the voting. If it is
deemed that the BSI veered from the best course of action and desires of its
members the vote can be changed - provided that parliament answers this question
and, if necessary, a result sent to ISO before those two months are
up.
As of this date there is still not a finalised draft to vote
upon...
Thank you for your time in this matter,
Yours
sincerely,
James Hogarth
And I also emailed my
MEPs:
Dear Gerard Batten, Baroness Sarah Ludford, John Bowis
OBE, Mary Honeyball, Charles Tannock, Claude Moraes, Robert Evans, Jean Lambert
and Syed Kamall,
You may, or may not in which case please allow me to
enlighten you, be aware of recent happenings in the world of standardisation and
consequently an investigation by the EU Commission of several countries
potential voting irregularities.
The abbreviated history is as follows.
Back in November 2005 the OASIS group had their draft for standardisation of
document formats ratified by ISO/IEC as IS26300 and the technical world
celebrated that there would be a vendor neutral format to store documents in...
the end of vendor lock-in! Microsoft, to a lack of general surprise, elected to
convince ECMA to create a technical committee to document their new XML format
in December 2005 rather than make use of this new ISO standard.
Fast forward
to May 2007 and this new document (ECMA-376) was submitted to ISO SC34 and the
sub-committee JTC1 received it for review. Fast forward again to September 2007
and ECMA was disapproved as an ISO standard. Our own national body, BSI,
submitted over 600 comments of things to be changed - a huge amount given that
this was already meant to be a standard under ECMA. Fast forward to last
week.... The BSI gave their approval ECMA-376 to be an ISO standard without
stating their intentions why. This seems very odd given that not all the
comments could have been resolved at the international meeting in
February.
There are further oddities in Germany, France, Poland and Norway to
name but a few in Europe.
Please note that this is very abbreviated and
for the full story please check my blog entry
located:
http://www.tideway.com/community/blog-post/how-to-buy-a-standard-in-10-
days/
There are also other websites such as www.groklaw.net and
www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/ that can give you a fuller
picture.
My purpose for writing to you in this matter is to request your
positions on the investigations taking place and to request that you lend
support to the EU Commission in attempting to discover what has been happening
in the various EU national bodies.
Note that it is not too late to find
out what has been going on. There are two months for complaints to be lodged
with ISO from national bodies with regards to the voting. If it is deemed that
one or more national bodies veered from the best course of action and desires of
its members the vote can be changed - provided that the Commission gets its
answers to their question and, if necessary, a result sent to ISO before those
two months are up.
As of this date there is still not a finalised draft
to vote upon...
Thank you for your time in this matter,
Yours
sincerely,
James Hogarth
If you are in the UK you can
use Write to Them - I would encourage
you to write if you can but please don't use my email for a straight template...
boilerplate emails will more likely to be filed and forgotten than more personal
discussion. For those in other countries if you can find out who you can write
to then do so highlight the situation as best as possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
Does anyone remember when Sun submitted Java to the ISO, and it was rejected
because they did not want to give up control of the standard?
Why is it Microsoft gets a pass on this and Sun didn't? Was it because Sun
played fair and Microsoft didn't? Just asking, I'm not accusing anyone of
anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
It's obvious that MS has horribly perverted the approval process here; the
question I have is, did ISO have the discretion, within their bylaws, to NOT
approve this proposal on the basis of the votes submitted by the member National
Bodies?
It *may* be the case that ISO cannot simply say, "This process was
obviously fraudulent" and throw out the result. They may be bound by their
charter to follow the vote unless and until a NB files an objection, at which
point they are empowered to take official notice of the shenanigans and tip the
result in the dumpster where it belongs. The operative term here is,
"may."
Does anyone have actual knowledge of what discretion ISO has or doesn't have in
this situation? That has an important bearing on whether they are the corrupt
miscreants they appear to be, or are simply hog-tied by a naive decision-making
process. That fact, in turn, should tell us much about the eventual fate of the
appeals made by NBs here.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:06 AM EDT |
There's a good discussion of the MSOOXML fiasco in
Le Monde, considered by many to be the leading serious French
newspaper.
It's a longish article which quotes both Microsoft and the
opponents of MSOOXML, but it makes the clear point that adoption of MSOOXML as
an ISO standard resulted from questionable procedures in several countries
(including AFNOR, the French body).
The last paragraph is headed
"MICROSOFT RENFORCÉ, L'ISO DÉCRÉDIBILISÉE" (Microsoft strengthened, the ISO lost
credibility) and concludes "Cette norme place maintenant Microsoft en position
incontournable en matière de formats bureautique, mais l'ISO perd encore un peu
plus de son indépendance et de sa crédibilité"
In English: "This standard
puts Microsoft in a leading position in office-automation file formats, but the
ISO loses a little more of its independence and credibility." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
After OOXML is published by ISO, I expect even stronger lock-in to Microsoft to
come. This is of course what Microsoft wanted all along. Here's what I think
will happen.
Those countries that voted for OOXML almost certainly did
so because they want to continue to use MS. They will continue to do so and
will begin to use OOXML to store their documents, in the name of
"standardization".
Anyone who needs to do any official business with
those governments will have to be able to read and produce OOXML documents, as
that is the standard format that has been selected.
Microsoft
intentionally designed OOXML so that no one else would be able to process it
properly. This is to force those of us who prefer some other tools to have to
buy the MS products as well.
Tom M.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
By the legitimate use of the principle that the rules are designed
for the protection of the minority,
That is the nature
of voting within Robert's Rules. For example, if there are 100 members and
vote: 45 Yes, 40 No, and 15 Abstain, then the vote passes ... also passes if the
vote is 20 Yes, 10 No, and 70 Abstain (this may be a reaonsable outcome: see
vanilla vs. chocolate below). Those who Abstain have the right to Abstain, and
also know that Abstaining means that they are not voicing a preference in their
(non-)vote
One negative vote defeats a motion to make
a vote unanimous, as a single objection defeats a request for general
consent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
If you want to add to the list of irregularities, here is one more. The JTC1
directives 13.12 includes this paragraph:
In not more than one
month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall
distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of
acceptance.
This one month period ended last Saturday. Apparently,
the final DIS text is still not distributed. The NBs has voted on a text that is
not available when the directives required it to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Haha! Nice strip. Another good one:
http://www.killrates.c
om/?Language=en&Strip=27[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Killrates.com - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Mycrowhard - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: samj on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
ISO have as promised stated that ISO/IEC DIS 29500
receives necessary votes for approval as an International Standard, followed
by a 573 word account of the debacle that was, going right back to December
2006. IMO they're essentially defending themselves as the bringer of bad news
and saying "please don't shoot the messenger".
It's hardly the usual bubbly press release
like:
But this is what's really telling. According to
Google it is unprecedented for them to talk about the appeals
process:
Subject to there being no formal appeals from ISO/IEC
national bodies in the next two months, the International Standard will
accordingly proceed to publication.
It seems that they're about
as happy with this situation as we are (except perhaps those who were somehow
'convinced' otherwise) and are virtually begging for the community to
appeal!
So what are you waiting for? Have you contacted your standards
body/member of parliament/watchdog yet?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
I never expected to see that happen, but I'm glad to see it happen. It's part of
my daily geek humor diet, right up there with UserFriendly (BTW, today's UF is a
riot--Dust Puppy looks like a Transformer). Way to go, Chris!
---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Click the "Weeble" link for Copying Permissions and Contact Info.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
This whole mess reminds me of a joke I heard over a decade ago (only it has a
more prophetic and sinister feel now):
How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?
None; Microsoft just declares darkness to be the new standard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
PJ said: "Check out the picture of OOXML. In volumes. Stacked on the
desk."
Rob Weir said (in the comments):
[O]ne way to understand the huge number
of spelling errors is that OOXML is too large to spell check. If you load the
Word version of Part 4 into Word, it will give you an warming [sic] message,
telling you that too many spelling errors have been detected and that it must
disable spell checking. I think that's funny.
E-man[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- LOL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:54 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
The official
position of Canada on OOXML is publicly available.
Canada
has carefully reviewed the results of the
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML Fast Track
Ballot
Resolution Meeting and determined after
detailed analysis that Canada
will maintain its
Disapprove vote.
Canada notes that major enhancements
had
been made to ISO/IEC 29500 during the Ballot
Resolution Meeting, but the
general quality of
the standard was not yet what was expected of
an ISO/IEC
Standard, and that there were still
too many unknowns.
Canada states that
the inappropriate use of the
fast track process for this DIS has rendered
it
impossible to ascertain whether in fact 29500
meets the standard of quality
and correctness
required in an International Standard.
Canada further
recommends that the ISO/IEC
JTC 1 Fast Track procedures and processes
be
reviewed and enhanced to ensure that this
situation does not arise again in
the future, and
bring disrepute to the whole ISO and IEC
International Standards
process.
Finally, Canada recommends that the ISO/IEC
DIS 29500 OOXML Fast
Track documents and
materials, plus the enhancements made at the
Ballot
Resolution Meeting be submitted to
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 as a New Work Item
for
processing via the normal standards
development
processes.
It strikes me this position looks like a very good
starting point for an appeal. The grounds might be two matters of
principles.
- The text of the DIS was not available to members national
bodies within one month of the end of the BRM as required by rule 13.12. Members
have voted on a DIS without having seen the text. At a matter of principle, on
no occasion an ISO/IEC standard should be adopted by a vote on a text that has
not been written.
- On two occasions at least, members were denied the
ability to abort the fast track process due to inappropriateness for this
particular DIS.
- At the BRM, the option to declare the comments
unresolvable in the alloted time was not presented for consideration. If such
option was presented and adopted, the fast track process would have aborted.
- At the end of the contradiction phase, the process should have been
aborted due to a massive number of unresolved contradictions. Instead the
Edition 5 version 3 of the JTC1 directives were adopted and a new rule was
adopted to require the continuing of the process in presence of unresolvable
contradictions. Please note that the new rule was adopted after the end of the
contradiction phase, just in time to allow the fast track process to resume.
As a matter of principle, the option to abort the Fast Track process
when it is determined to be inappropriate for a DIS must always be
available.
Other grounds can be raised, but these two are very consistent
with Canada's position and they have the diplomatic advantage of not depending
on questions on the quality of the work of other national bodies.
ISTR that
appeals based on matters of principles are allowed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: samj on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
Hi,
Thanks PJ for your ongoing efforts and to the Groklaw community,
especially Jimbob0i0
for providing some incentive to take action with his earlier posts. It will be
interesting to see what effect (if any) this will have and I do wonder whether
SA would prefer to argue that they were disinterested or
incompetent.
Hopefully this will in turn convince others to look
up the offending standards bodies, hunt down MPs, complain to watchdogs,
etc. as there's no point whatsoever in reading this blog, getting annoyed and
doing nothing!
Enjoy,
Sam
---------- Forwarded
message ----------
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Subject: Complaint
regarding abstention position on OOXML
To: Standards Australia
Standardisation Services
Dear Sir/Madam,
Notwithstanding
recognition of the tireless work
Standards Australia makes in this important
field, I write to formally
complain about the 'abstain' position recently taken
in the 'ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML file
formats'
standardisation process. Given the time sensitive nature of
the
complaint and the potential for substantial negative impact on
Australian
businesses and consumers alike I will concurrently be
raising it with the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC), among others.
I
will not contribute further to the heated ongoing debate on this
topic focused
around the unsuitability of this file format as a
'standard' at this time,
instead drawing attention to my primary
concern - the validity of the 'abstain'
position in this context
(particularly with comments). In the event that this
proves to be a
valid position I will provide further justification in due
course.
According to the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives document
(0856rev.pdf
attached for your convenience) to which Standards Australia is
bound as
a JTC 1 participant, there are clearly three options -
Approval,
Disapproval or Abstention:
9.8 Votes on Fast-track
DISs
The
period for fast-track DIS (or DAM) voting shall be six
months,
consisting of a 30-day JTC 1 National Body review period followed by
a
five-month ballot period. NBs may reply in one of the following
ways:
- Approval of the technical content of the DIS as
presented (editorial or other comments may be
appended);
- Disapproval
of the DIS (or DAM) for technical reasons to
be stated, with proposals
for changes that would make the document acceptable
(acceptance of
these proposals shall be referred to the NB concerned for
confirmation
that the vote can be changed to
approval);
- Abstention (see 9.1.2).
[Note:
Conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote.]
The
latter option (the position reported to ISO by Standards Australia) is defined
in 9.1.2 as:
9.1.2 A P-member which has given appropriate
notification
that it will abstain from participation in specific work items
(see
3.1.2) is entitled to abstain from voting on these work items.
And further elaborated in 3.1.2 (emphasis
mine):
3.1.2 A P-member may have an interest in the field of JTC
1 without having interest or competence in all of the work items which may be
dealt with.
In such an instance, a P-member may inform the JTC 1
Secretariat, the
SC Secretariat and the ITTF at the beginning of the work, or at
a later
stage, that it will abstain from participation in discussion or
voting on specific items.
Such a position, established and recorded by
JTC 1, shall entitle the
P-member to be absent from meetings and to abstain from
voting on the
relevant FDISs.
According to Standards Australia's 31
March 2008 press release
(080331_Aust_maintains_abstain_position_on_OOXML.pdf
attached for your
convenience) and other publicly available
information, it is my contention that
Standards Australia not only
failed to give appropriate notification but lacks
neither the interest
nor the competence. Indeed it has demonstrated and admitted
to both,
including by way of ongoing activity and by active participation in
the
recent BRM in Geneva (080221_SA_Statement_on_OOXML_BRM.pdf attached for your
convenience). Specifically on the topic of
interest:
- "Understanding the significance of the global
debate
surrounding the adoption of this ECMA standard by ISO,
Standards
Australia has appointed a senior delegation to attend the
ballot
resolution meeting addressing National Body comments on
draft
international standard 29500."
And on the topic of
competence:
- "The Senior Project
Manager of the IT and Commerce
area at Standards Australia was
appointed as Head of Delegation, supported by an
alternative technical
expert."
Furthermore "Mr Panjan
Navaratnam, head of Standards
Australia's delegation to the Geneva BRM, said
Standards Australia had
been working with industry, the community and government
for more than
14 months to come up with an agreed position on the OOXML
Standard" conceding that
"Unfortunately two clear groups have formed, in
part along commercial
lines, either supporting or opposing the adoption of OOXML
as an
International Standard, including the Commonwealth Government
which
opposes its adoption".
It is thus also my contention that
certain commercial interests have impaired Standards Australia from exercising
its duty.
I
note that in an unprecedented move the Internation
Standards
Organisation (ISO) has referred to the appeals process in their 2
April
press release announcing 'ISO/IEC DIS 29500 receives necessary votes
for approval as an International Standard' (http://www.iso.org/
iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1123):
Subject to there being no
formal
appeals from ISO/IEC national bodies in the next two months, the
International Standard will accordingly
proceed to publication.
In
light of the invalidity of the 'Abstain' position in this
context and
noting that it is well recognised that there are many
outstanding
technical issues ('The recent BRM only addressed a small number
of the issues raised by various member countries'), as well as observing
that comments were submitted when 'Conditional approval should be submitted
as a disapproval vote',
I hereby call on Standards Australia to lodge a
formal appeal to ISO
within the two month window with a view to changing its
invalid
'Abstain' vote to a valid 'Disapproval' vote. Doing so will
properly
indicate the inability to reach consensus for 'Approval of the
technical content of the DIS as presented' rather than the failure to
try.
Yours faithfully,
Sam
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Did Microsoft really try to make a Groklaw account pretending to be an average
user?
I missed it. When did that happen? Got a link?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
