Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

yoonkit — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:29:23 GMT

CEILING.

Hi. I think the burden of work during the last day must have gotten to you. CEILING was proposed to have 3 parameters, but Ecma said that this would break everything, and other countries would vote it down. So Rick and I spent the Friday morning trying to come up with a compromise and its now a prepended with a dot.

i.e. iso.ceiling() gives the right answer while ecma.ceiling() gives the wrong answer for negative numbers.

[We wanted namespace type syntax i.e. iso:ceiling() and ecma:ceiling() but your techie said that your 1 token look ahead parser wouldnt be able to tell apart the XML namespace ':' with the array range symbol as parameters. We took their word on good faith, and compromised with the dot notation]

Regards,

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

yoonkit — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:40:52 GMT

Perhaps if you could, indicate WHEN these were resolved and Approved. Instead of giving the timetable when the items were raised, its more telling when the vote and final discussion took place.

I believe then the proceedings wouldn't look so orderly as your blog post may indicate.

e.g. Monday and Tuesday probably had 98.4% items taken 'off-line' and resolved on Thursday or Friday.

Regards,

yk.

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Andre — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:51:33 GMT

"Germany proposed to limit alternative format input parts to content in one of the following four standardized formats: text, HTML, XHTML, and WordprocessingML. This enables flexible importing of a wide variety of data, but by limiting to these formats, interoperability is improved. Approved."

Which would mean that e.g. OOXML could not become a container for the ODF file format.

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Marcus — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:31:05 GMT

Hi Brian it's a useful summary.

One thing you didn't mention is that a lot of the dispositions were already discussed before the BRM, so there was plenty of time to raise and consider issues before the meeting.

Thanks!

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Bob Jolliffe — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:16:06 GMT

Hi Brian

Whereas I think your narrative account is a useful addition to the various such accounts on the web, I find your characterisation of 189 "individual Ecma responses individually and deeply discussed in the BRM" something of an exaggeration. As you point out yourself, some 126 responses were passed in a batch as being simply editorial. The actual number discussed was much fewer.

It seems that argument over the extent of the work done at the BRM is becoming something of a political football at present, with various parties trying to exaggerate the outcomes. My own perspective (and I was also there) is that much of the work that was done was really good, but it was nowhere near the scale you suggest.

The majority of responses remained undiscussed. Those which were discussed almost all resulted in a change to the original ECMA response. Many of the discussions which occurred offline were resolved in something of a rush on Friday, with more than one resolution being approved before the text of that resolution was made available to the meeting. You might recall South Africa raising an objection to this.

Let us by all means acknowledge the good work which was done, but don't try and extrapolate this into fantasy to make things look better than they in fact were.

Bob

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Rob Brown — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:10:52 GMT

Hi Brian,

I think you're a pretty good wordsmith, and I admire your positive outlook. But (and there had to be a 'but' :-) this post is a clumsy bit of spin and doesn't add anything to the information that's already available.

Let's take the phrase "wide consensus", which you've helpfully highlighted in bold and italic. When referring to the no-discussion, paper vote adoption of 80% of the proposed responses, Jesper Lund Stocholm (http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/03/BRM-aftermath.aspx) characterises it as grudging acceptance; other commentators have been a lot less diplomatic. Your version doesn't wash.

Likewise, in bold and underline this time, you've said that the "deeply discussed" 189 responses correspond "to more than 1000 original NB comments". What an odd choice of statistic! The immediate (and correct) rejoinder is "what about the complete lack of discussion on the other 2500 original NB comments?". If you think you can convince anyone that those 189 responses were all of the important ones, and the other 800 were somehow comparatively minor, you're dreaming. And as for leaving those other issues until maintenance, that comes down to whether Microsoft can be trusted to diligently follow them up. You know how I stand on that point.

Finally, a little story: Stephane Rodriguez (http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/) and Rob Weir have posted factual articles on technical deficiencies in OOXML. I wanted to experience it for myself, and see if I could do some things with MS Office 2007/OOXML that I can already do with OpenOffice.org Calc/ODF. I tried to download a trial copy of MS Office 2007, but when I arrived at the registration screen https://us7.trymicrosoftoffice.com/trialinfo.aspx?culture=en-US&wa=wsignin1.0 the only choice for "Country" was "United States". This was even after I navigated to the site starting from http://www.microsoft.co.nz. I suppose I could have put in a bogus address, but it didn't seem right. After trying for 45 minutes, using Firefox on Linux and Windows and also IE7 on Windows, I gave up. Was this just a temporary problem?

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

marc — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:57:32 GMT

Regarding the "wide consensus" , Brian, thank you for your kind PR words...

But i stand by my numbers

BRM abstention + refusal to vote + negative votes per country:

Country abst+no+refusal Percentage

----------- --------------- -----------

China 1027 100.00%

Ireland 1027 100.00%

Ecuador 1027 100.00%

Netherland 1027 100.00%

Mexico 1027 100.00%

Malaysia 1022 99.51%

Korea (s) 1021 99.42%

New Zealand 1018 99.12%

Australia 1008 98.15%

India 1005 97.86%

Italy 995 96.88%

Belgium 986 96.01%

Israel 983 95.72%

Kenya 970 94.45%

US 966 94.06%

France 965 93.96%

Greece 963 93.77%

Portugal 935 91.04%

Japan 934 90.94%

Germany 912 88.80%

Canada 886 86.27%

South Africa 875 85.20%

Denmark 871 84.81%

Brazil 573 55.79%

Switzerland 349 33.98%

UK 187 18.21%

Czech 7 0.68%

Finland 6 0.58%

Poland (O member) 4 0.39%

Chile (O member) 1 0.10%

Ivory Coast (MS HOD)(*) 0 0.00%

Norway 0 0.00%

(*) http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-43510/ivory-coast-represented-by-microsoft-senegal-at-the-brm

By the way, you (Microsoft) and ECMA should be ashamed to use the fast-track mechanism to put another bulk of pages ( +400 ) with wide changes ( including change of scope and conformance terminology for god sake! ) that try to address the problems that should have been fixed by Microsoft/ECMA *before* throwing this beast to fast-track.

I will suggest Microsoft XML team and ECMA to learn a little of "standardization behaviour" from the Adobe team: they did their homework lot of months *before* ever thinking about submitting PDF to ISO guts and before any ballot ( note: PDF has been fast-tracked with a 93% approval vote ):

http://www.aiim.org/documents/standards/isoformatting_070719.pdf

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/01/adobe-pdf-forma.html

--marc

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Anonymous Coward — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:16:18 GMT

Regarding those little technical details, here's first hand experiences from someone actually trying to code and implement OOXML in real life:

http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/ooxml_import_in_writer_a

Just proves what have been posted about it earlier, others will have to check both the standard OOXML and the OOXML produced by the de facto reference implementation. So here we go back to the '90s, to the days of IE/HTML/CSS games..

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

hAl — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:02:05 GMT

marc, you table is menaingless unless when you ad certain columns even though th colums were seperate in the source.

Why don't opponents not show us the original voting numbers but their own intepreted version?

Why is there a need for opponent to alter the voting figures to try and make a point?

As it the task of the BRM to accept changes to the proposed draft why are you not producing numbers that shows how many changes were accepted by the BRM. Your numbers are purpously altered in such a way that they do not show the actual result of the BRM anymore. I guess that is what being against Ofice Open XML is about?

Manipulating the numbers when you don't like them?

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

marc — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:40:00 GMT

hal

"marc, you table is menaingless unless when you ad certain columns even though th colums were seperate in the source."

you are free to interpret the numbers as you like, i only posted them; if you find any mistake in the numbers, let me know ( but i won't send you a check like Donald Knuth ;-)

"Why is there a need for opponent to alter the voting figures to try and make a point?"

first, i'm not an opponent, i'm an advocate of restoring the quality in standardization instead of "standardizing by corporations" [1]

If you read my comments in brian's blog you will see that i'm consistent in my critics since day one [2].

Second, i didn't altered anything;

for example you can ask[3] Wemba Opota about his bulk approve. By the way ask Wemba Opota why he approved ECMA responses 240 , 245 , 246 , 635 even though Japan National Body delegates expressly alerted about "several errors" in this responses "based on misunderstandings on Japanese/Asian text handling" ( Japan voted "disapprove" in BRM to all this ECMA responses, but the bulk approvers reversed this vote ). Totally *irresponsible*.

Shame on Côte d'Ivoire citizens: they have a Microsoft manager in charge of its national interests in international standardization matters ( and they are P-members of ISO JTC1 ! thanks to JTC1 diligent work: they gave Côte d'Ivoire P-member status a few days before September/2007 ballot closing, just to cast an "unconditional approval" vote ).

Shame on ISO JTC1 that gave power of vote to O ( OBSERVING not PARTICIPATING ) members like Poland and Chile at the BRM, contradicting the spirit of JTC1 Directives ( clauses 3.2, 7.7.4, 9.1.4 ) [4] . This O members didn't participate in the BRM ( the Chilean HOD arrived at Geneva on Wednesday, attended the BRM only Thursday and Friday, only to threw a bulk approve to 1027 comments and leave Geneva the following day. Poland delegations virtually didn't speak at BRM.

"Your numbers are purpously altered in such a way that they do not show the actual result of the BRM anymore."

Give me a break, i didn't alter anything. Request from ISO JTC1 the numbers if you don't believe me or search the spreadsheet yourself on the internet ( it was posted online a week ago ).

--marc

[1] http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0940.htm

[2] http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/10/25/spreadsheetml-dates.aspx#877252

[3] http://blogs.msdn.com/wemba/default.aspx

[4] http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Jesper Lund Stocholm — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:18:30 GMT

marc,

it's funny you should mention PDF in ISO, because that standardisation process contains all the fuel that feeds the flames of the ODF/OOXML-debate: proprietary formats, backwards compatibility, no community involvement in the process etc.

Given the interest in the OOXML-standardisation due to "pure principal arguments" and underlining the importance of standardisation through broad industry consensus and not stand-alone corporations, I'm surprised you guys have not been equally frantic about IS 32000.

Two possible reasons for this could be:

1. It's not as fun attacking Adobe as it is atacking Microsoft

2. Have you read the spec? It's really hard to read and a totally different spec than both ODF and OOXML

Just for the fun of it - look at chapter 3 p. 56 where it says:

Hexadecimal Strings

Strings may also be written in hexadecimal form, which is useful for including arbitrary binary data in a PDF file. A hexadecimal string is written as a sequence of hexadecimal digits (0–9 and either A–F or a–f) enclosed within angle brackets (< and >):

< 4E6F762073686D6F7A206B6120706F702E >

OMG - where is all the people screaming "Arbitrary binary data?, PDF is a ticking security-nightmare!" or "Arbitrary binary data?, a clear case of vendor lockin!".

:o)

Please look at the summary Adobe made on what they changed for the ISO-version at http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdfs/ISOFormatting_070604C.pdf

Notice the paragraph saying:

"The following is a summary of the changes that were made to the to the publicly available Adobe PDF 1.7 Reference in order to produce the ISO Draft. The technical content was maintained; only the presentation was changed."

Where have you guys been?

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

hp — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:41:11 GMT

As someone said earlier, kudos to your wordsmithing. It looks like the stuff you have put up here is going to be the basis of your organization's efforts in trying to explain to not-fully-clued-in national bodies. Par for the course I guess. I appreciate that fact that you are trying to be fair and honest, but when facts are screaming out otherwise, why do you toe the official line? Enough information from other BRM attendees point to a different reality than what you paint. It is perhaps a big mistake that the BRM was not recorded for something as contentious as this should have been.

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

hAl — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:47:21 GMT

[quote]you are free to interpret the numbers as you like, i only posted them[/quote]

That would hard as you did not post the original source info but only the manipulated info. I can't change your manipulations back to for instance show seperate columns for approval and disapproval.

I still wonder why you did not show those original numbers. You say you are not an opponent but showing the figures like you did by adding abstain votes to disapporval is only done by opponents. If you are not an opponent then don't act like one !!!

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

marc — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:21:31 GMT

"I still wonder why you did not show those original numbers. You say you are not an opponent but showing the figures like you did by adding abstain votes to disapporval is only done by opponents. If you are not an opponent then don't act like one !!!"

i'm showing what i'm showing because my point is about the lack of consensus, lack of review and lack of quality of this DIS 29500 fast-track.

jesper, about the binary thing in PDF, you seems to forget that PDF is not an XML format and that the PDF specification was *properly* published fifteen years ago [1] and that the Adobe CEO never wrote:

One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.

" [2]

besides that, my point was about taking seriously the work in standardization ( Microsoft and ECMA weren't serious, they are just gamers of the system, but this is its nature, how do you think you keep billions of u$s stream in Office business? being really open and fostering competition in office applications?

i'm surprised that you, that seems to *work* in standards matters advocate this crazy rushed process ; you have many things to learn from people like Martin Bryan, Alex Brown, why not? Donald Knuth ;-)

marc

[1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html

[2] http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Ian Easson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:23:39 GMT

In case a random visitor to this blog reads what "marc" has to say and thinks it is anywhere near the unbiased truth, they should go and see a very different view of consensus at the BRM and what the BRM accomplished.

A very balanced view (my opinion, of course) is from the ex-Secretary General of the ECMA. Look at his blog posting at

http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-view-of-brm-for-dis-29500-has-now.html

The high-level summary from his first paragraph says:

"Ten days after the actual BRM, a view of what really happened during this event has now emerged: Consensus prevailed in the BRM and the specification became better."

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Rob Brown — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:16:06 GMT

I have to admit that, even though I'm reading from a fairly anti-OOXML viewpoint, I still haven't figured out what marc's figures are actually saying! (No offence intended marc.) But surely it's time to let the arguing over "what really happened at the BRM" end? We know what the resolutions were; I don't think anyone's going to seriously challenge any perceived irregularities.

It's all down to the NBs now, although I'm sure there's lots of backroom activity going on that we will never find out about. Unfortunately for the NBs, no revised text of DIS29500 has been produced (to my knowledge) so each of them will have to do a lot of cutting and pasting to even get a document to review!

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Andre — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:58:32 GMT

"Notice the paragraph saying:

Where have you guys been?"

You are right about the fun. But principles matter. It is of no use to say: others are equally bad.

This format matters to the business environment. It is a multi-billion dollar business and why should we compromise with a second best solution?

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

marc — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:23:17 GMT

"A very balanced view (my opinion, of course) is from the ex-Secretary General of the ECMA. Look at his blog posting at "

Yes, balanced, good joke

Jan Van der Beld is now paid by Microsoft to lobby for OOXML in National Bodies. He is one of the "standardization by corporations" champions

i.e:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITyO71Et6g

(this was in an event last week in Lisbon)

Jan Van den Beld said at 4:30:

"ECMA for instance has made all the standards for DVD and optical disks. There were 5 recording formats. So there you are a little bit uneasy, of course. And again after a few beers I can ask the people in the room. Why do you want to have 5 formats? Do you still call that standardization?

The answer is always the same:

You are well paid. Shut up"

--marc

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Ian Easson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:46:09 GMT

I listened to that video. All he way saying at 4:30 was that he was a paid employee of ECMA at the time the question of multiple DVD standards arose, and it was not up to him to question the need for multiple standards.

ECMA is an industry standards organization. If you find this world-threatening, you are paranoid.

I saw nothing in the video that said "he is now paid by Microsoft to lobby for OOXML in National Bodies", as you claim. What is your source for that astounding accusation?

According to his blog profile, "I'm consultant in IT Standardization issues, working for organizations like Ecma International, CompTIA, SNV (Swiss National Standards Body)."

Microsoft is not listed.

Brian, any comment?

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

BrianJones — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:21:34 GMT

Sorry for not replying sooner folks:

Yoon Kit,

(1) Ceiling description was incorrect, and is now updated. Sorry about that. I appreciate again the work you and Rick did to pull together the proposal.

Note that the issue with using ":" instead of "." wasn't really as much around Excel itself but around the grammar for formulas. ":" already had a well defined meaning, and it wasn't a good idea to override that. "iso:sum" could be viewed as a range of columns, or a namespaced function if we had gone with ":" instead of "."

(2) I think showing these items in terms of when they were initially discussed and the offline work began is more appropriate. I agree that more things were closed out on Friday, but the work actually began after the intial discussion. When items were taken "off-line" that meant the countries interested worked on coming to a resolution they were happy with, and then presenting that resolution.

------------------

Marcus,

You are absolutely correct, the review of these items started months ago. The first draft of the Ecma responses was given to the national bodies back in November, and we opened a line of communication at that point where NBs could contact us with questions. We continued that leading up to the BRM.

The BRM was really the time where people brought up the issues they were not yet satisfied with and wanted to see further changes made.

--------------

Bob,

Sorry if it seems I'm trying to over exaggerate the results. Like you I agree that there was a lot of great work done. I also think we made a lot of progress in the months leading up to the BRM. I don't remember South Africa calling in to any of the earlier discussions, but we did talk to a number of national bodies and aimed to pull together a response that would make everyone happy.

If you look at the meaty topics discussed, they translated into a much larger number of national body comments. Most of the ones we discussed were raised by a number of countries, and often they were raised more than once by one country. So I think the percentages discussed were actually pretty good given the time we had.

I'm really looking forward to continuing this work in maintenance.

--------------

Rob,

Not sure why you're having those problems getting at the trial. You could also experiment with the Open XML support in OpenOffice in the mean time though.

-----------------

Marc,

I agree with other folks that those numbers don't really show much. I don't even know how to reply as I'm not sure what the point is. I saw that table first from Andy Updegrove (OASIS attorney) and I didn't see the purpose there either.

--------------

Rob,

I agree. The purpose of this blog was to primarily show what the changes were that happened so folks know what the final spec will look like.

At this point it's really up to the NBs to decide what they want to see happen with the spec

--------------

Ian and Marc,

Not sure about Jan's employment. I talked to him briefly at the BRM, but we haven't actually had a chance to sit down and chat since he retired from Ecma.

-Brian

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Jesper Lund Stocholm — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:48:41 GMT

marc,

"jesper, about the binary thing in PDF, you seems to forget that PDF is not an XML format"

Woah - so in your words, from an applications-perspective, interop- and security issues of including arbitrary binary chunks of data into a document format are only relevant, when the document format is XML?

Pardon my French, marc, but are you nuts? :o)

Also I think you need to pick up your favorite DOCX/PDF-version of the OOXML-spec and take a look at the binary blobs that have been so widely critizised and look how they are embedded in the document format. Hint: they are not embedded in the XML-files but in the OPC-package.

"the PDF specification was *properly* published fifteen years ago [1] "

So it is not really a big deal that the document format is vendor controlled - only when Microsoft is the vendor? It is not really a big deal that development is exclusive to the originator of the formet - only when the vendor is Microsoft? It is not really a big deal that the specification barely changed during ISO-submission and that the comments from the ballot has yet to be dealt with - only when the vendor is Microsoft?

"[and] that the Adobe CEO never wrote:"

I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but it's 2008 now and the software-world has changed quite a bit. That you use quotations from Bill Gates from 10 years ago as basis for your argument is really mind-baffling. I am sure, though, that you can find similar quotes from IBM-execs from the IBM-golden days in the 70ties that speak more or less to the same merit as the words of Bill Gates. As with Microsoft, IBM is a different company now.

"i'm surprised that you, that seems to *work* in standards matters advocate this crazy rushed process ;"

I am not advocating "this crazy rushed process" as such - I am advocating that the ISO-rules should be applied to ECMA as well as they were to OASIS when submitting their document formats. By changing the ISO-rules in the middle of the process (e.g. terminating the FT-process, which is not possible with the current ISO-rules) would have ISO create a defacto-monopoly for document formats ... and we don't want that, do we?

"you have many things to learn from people like Martin Bryan, Alex Brown, why not? Donald Knuth ;-)"

Well, I think we all have a lot to learn yet ... but why is Donald Knut relevant?

:o)

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Jesper Lund Stocholm — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:58:41 GMT

Andre,

"But principles matter. It is of no use to say: others are equally bad."

I am not saying that.

What I am saying is, that "you guys" (in a general setting) have been talking so much about principles, purity, community-involvement, engineering efforts, quality etc as your "pseudo"-arguments against OOXML. But if this was in fact true, you would have been banging no less on the doorsteps of Adobe and flooding their blogs for the last year or so as well.

That the anti-OOXML lobby hasn't done this tells me, that they don't really care about these things anyway ... this is just their chance to slap Microsoft around a bit. It's just much less fun to beat on Adobe than on Microsoft.

What's the word I am looking for ... ah yes ... hypocricy.

:o)

"why should we compromise with a second best solution?"

We should not comprise with a second best solution. ISO has already decided what they regard as the characteristics for a document format to get ISO-approval (in PDF), and OOXML should be evaluated on the same characteristics. Otherwise the ISO-rules themselves will effectively be just another tool to hinder competition.

re: Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

marc — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:01:16 GMT

"I saw nothing in the video that said "he is now paid by Microsoft to lobby for OOXML in National Bodies", as you claim. What is your source for that astounding accusation?"

one recent example:

http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/rumble-in-kuala.html

[Open XML] Réunion finale Française à l'AFNOR : done !

Blog de Julien Chable (Neodante) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:49:40 GMT

Pour faire référence à mon précédent post , voici un petit compte rendu rapide de cette journée, ou plutôt

The Votes are coming in...

Aatish Ramkaran : Technically speaking... — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:37:22 GMT

Tomorrow ( March 29th 2008 ) is the final day in which national bodies can reconsider their position

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Narrative of the ISO/IEC DIS-29500 BRM Meeting

Weddings — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:58:06 GMT

BRM Summary I wanted to take the time to give a narrative of what actually happened in the BRM, since we're now moving onto the final phase and I wanted to get this all in writing before I forgot. I wanted to give an overview of the topics discussed base