US technical committee reaches deadlock

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

hAl — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:57:57 GMT

We would be interested to know which of the particular comments you feel would obstruct the standardization process in the future ?

Were those comments for instance referring to the name of the spec, to splitting up the spec or to altering parts of the spec in a way that it would affect the compatibility goals ?

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

hAl — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:04:51 GMT

With the INCITs exectuive board already containing 3 organisations that voted NO against an OOXML approval in the V1 committee (IBM Oracle and Farance Inc) and some other notable Microsoft competitors in that board, how would you fancy the chances that the US goes to the ISO meeting with an "Approval with comments" vote in mind ???

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

marc — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:42:54 GMT

dough magugh said:

"Some V1 members felt that 'Approval with comments' was the position to take, because it sends a message that Open XML should become an ISO standard, but there are some things that need to be corrected or modified in the spec"

I've been following this process since its beginning ( BTW thanks to all the people that make open and transparent this ).

Actually, the JTC1 Directives[1] don't allow a "approve with technical comments".

If you have agreed about some technical modifications, then you must vote "disapprove with comments".

With my respect, you, as a member of Incits/V1, should know this.

dough magugh said:

"In Friday's call, Patrick Durusau (the chair of V1) explained to us the five positions that we could recommend:

1. Approval

2. Approval with comments

3. Disapproval with comments

4. Abstain

5. Abstention with comments"

In [2], Durusau explained "what he had confirmed with INCITS and what he thought was evident from the Directives", citing [2]:

"...

confirmed with INCITS

- Approve as presented

- Approve with comments (editorial or other)

- Disapprove with technical comments

- Disapprove with technical comments (conditional approval)

- Abstain with comments

/end confirmed with INCITS

...

Further, note that comments are divided into three categories:

Editorial

Other

Technical

Only abstention with comments makes no distinction between the types of comments. Or to put it another way, yes with comments is accompanied only by editorial and other comments, not technical comments.

(personal opinion) I suspect the reason for the difference in the type of comments is that conditional approval, no with comments, is appropriate where the proposal is favored but needs technical corrections before becoming an IS.

[1] ( JTC1 Directives, pages 112-113 ): http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0828.pdf

[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul11-140715.eml

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

Chris Clark — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:37:55 GMT

Doug,

Not sure about 171 letters being delivered in support. It looks more like 1 letter sent in by 171 people.

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

dmahugh — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:18:30 GMT

hAl, I'd rather not get into specific comments here, but I'll just say there are comments that clearly improve the spec (such as correcting examples, a pet peeve of mine long before anyone brought it up in V1), and other comments that don't clearly improve the spec in my opinion. As for what might happen in the EB, I don't know most of the players there, and have no firsthand knowledge of the process, so I couldn't speculate.

Marc, there is definitely some debate about those details, not least because the JTC 1 directives and the INCITS mandate to V1 don't use the exact same jargon. As for my reporting of events that took place Friday, I was careful to just quote the publicly available minutes, so those aren't my interpretations or opinions.

Chris, I agree that many people have used a form letter, just as a large number of comments received by TCs around the world are repetitions of the same text from the same original source. I'm more interested in seeing how many people/organizations publicly voice support or non-support in their own name.

Pardon my brevity, but I'm on vacation so that's all the comments I'll have today.

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

marc — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:05:49 GMT

dough magugh said:

"Marc, there is definitely some debate about those details, not least because the JTC 1 directives and the INCITS mandate to V1 don't use the exact same jargon. "

dough,

. the Incits/V1 chair confirmed this with Incits ( incompatibility of "yes" vote with technical comments ) [1]

. the JTC1 SC34 chair confirmed the same interpretation [2]

. JTC1 directives read: "If a national body votes affirmatively, it shall not submit any comments. If a national body finds a final draft International Standard unacceptable, it shall vote

negatively and state the technical reasons. " [3]

Why don't you ask ISO's JTC1 ( or request USA INCITS a clearer mandate, conformant with JTC1 procedures ) if you aren't sure about this important issue?

Thank god you are not standardizing Aerospace & Aviation Industry Standards !. You are reviewing +6000 pages to become a standard via fast-track and don't know exactly how the process goes !!!

[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul11-140715.eml

[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul02-080502.eml

[3] http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0828.pdf ( page 113 )

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

RogersParking — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:45:05 GMT

You're the one who looks confused, Marc. You should check your facts better.

The same source you're quoting, the chair of V1, decided to ask them to vote on "Approve with comments." Why would the chair have them vote on "Approve with comments" if he believes that's not allowed? That doesn't add up.

And why should Microsoft request a clearer mandate from INCITS? If you don't like the fact the chair offered them "Approve with comments" as a choice, why don't you confront the chair about it, instead of whining to Microsoft?

PS: Are you the same Marc who named all the V1 members on Rob Weir's blog?

PSS: You should really get outside now then.

Open XML news

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:54:43 GMT

Here are a few interesting links related to the Open XML formats US technical committee reaches deadlock

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

marc — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:05:14 GMT

dough mahugh said:

"That's also when the membership of V1 increased significantly, as organizations in the US that have hands-on Open XML experience got more involved in the process. As of May, only two of the V1 members (Microsoft and Mindjet) had any experience implementing Open XML, but now there are many companies with hands-on Open XML experience involved in the process. "

This is what the chair of JTC1 SC34, a man with 30 years of background/record in standardization says about the abrupt influx of some new members of V1, citing:

"A lot of time has been wasted recently by people who understand neither the ISO process nor formal operation of a meeting.

I, for one, would like for the INCITS rules to say that one had to be a member of a committee for some period of time -- say six months -- before voting. In the days when V1 was started, of course, all meetings were face to face, and two meetings usually meant six months. V1, currently relying on teleconferences, is having meetings far more frequently than those who drafted the rules envisioned, and so people are becoming eligible to vote before they're really seasoned in the process." ( http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul16-202519.eml )

IMHO, this people are playing "the standard game". They should respect the standardization process.

dough mahugh said:

"If you want to see the original submissions of these comments and the email discussions around them, check out the public V1 email reflector"

A better and more direct link for people interested in this process is the file "v1 comments.zip" at http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200706/2007Jun30-173123.eml

( note: this is a mail file, save it and open it with an email reader [ mozilla thunderbird, outlook, etc. ] )

chris clark said:

"Not sure about 171 letters being delivered in support. It looks more like 1 letter sent in by 171 people."

If you are interested, this is one of the 171 letters:

http://www.incits.org/DIS29500/in070773.htm

It reads: "...Even though this is a form letter from Microsoft I thought I would add this personal touch..."

Interesting, uh?

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

zoobab — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:27:57 GMT

You mean you are paid to be in this camp?

Microsoft should have flooded the committee with more puppets in order to be sure to get a majority.

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

hAl — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:28:35 GMT

How do you feel about Jon Bosak of Sun stating that:

"We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents"

(see http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul16-081558.eml)

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

Stephane Rodriguez — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:40:09 GMT

hAL,

This just proves how full of shit you are. You've cut the piece of Bosak's comment you liked. Read it in its entirety!

If you are not being paid by Microsoft for the FUD you are throwing, then in addition to being full of shit, you are really a lame bastard.

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

RogersParking — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:26:28 GMT

Stephane....

Is it really necessary for you to swear and make accusations of bribery just because somebody disagrees with you? I doubt that adds credibility to whatever the point is that you're trying to make. Are you childishly confrontational in all aspects of your life or simply emboldened by the great Internet security fence?

Just a thought: Decaf

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

Stephane Rodriguez — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:08:26 GMT

RogersParking,

Regardless whether or not you are a Microsoft employee, you owe it to yourself to check out hAL's comment before you address mine.

As for hAL itself, he's been pretty much the only person that is posting for MONTHS on MSDN blogs and blogs from people criticizing OOXML (mostly constructive criticism), always trying to tear down any criticism of OOXML with 1) zero argument 2) never providing credentials : who he is, what are his interests.

To set the record straight, here is what hAL intentionally cut off Bosak's comment : "Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as presently written is technically incapable of achieving those goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an ISO Standard that would enable them.".

Pretty minor, heh?

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

Stephane Rodriguez — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:15:32 GMT

Typo. I am actually incorrect in stating that hAL is one of those poor schmucks going around the internet for gratuitous comments to make. The other one is Rick Jetliffe. After a quick scan of related blogs today, I have noticed he's in just about every comment area, with the exact same argument : OOXML cures cancer.

Whatever bribery buys...

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

dmahugh — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:35:35 GMT

Stephane, that's your final comment on this blog. I've tried to be gracious and allow all voices to be heard, but today I'm crossing a line and banning you. You're the first person I've ever banned here, but it's long overdue.

I've received complaints about your profanity and name-calling in the past, and these recurring allegations of "bribery" against various people are slander, pure and simple. You've never offered any proof to back up your claims, so it's just vicious character assassination. You'll need to find another forum to do it in, because I won't let any more of that appear here.

- Doug

re: US technical committee reaches deadlock

hAl — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:17:07 GMT

[quote]This just proves how full of shit you are. You've cut the piece of Bosak's comment you liked. Read it in its entirety![/quote]

You little twit. You are the one full of shit

I actually copied the sentence from Eric Lai's computerworld article where Eric raised some interesting points on why Sun would actually state that !!! I was just interested if Doug shared Eric lai opinion on sun's motivation.

[Open XML] : Les Etats Unis dise OUI au vote ISO Open XML !

Blog de Neodante (Julien Chable) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:05:18 GMT

Suite à la recommandation d'abstention du comité technique INCITS V1, le bureau exécutif de l'INCITS

Spinning the ISO process in the US

Doug Mahugh — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:08:27 GMT

The various members of INCITS here in the US have been busy the last two weeks, with the technical committee

Spinning the ISO process in the US

Noticias externas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:35:33 GMT

The various members of INCITS here in the US have been busy the last two weeks, with the technical committee

inching toward September 2

Doug Mahugh — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:59:14 GMT

The September 2 vote on DIS 29500 is rapidly approaching, and Jason Matusow has posted a wrap-up of where

Confusion, corrections, observers, and O-members

Doug Mahugh — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:58:23 GMT

An article in Computerworld yesterday entitled "ISO officials, others dispute claims that Open XML meeting

Confusion, corrections, observers, and O-members

Noticias externas — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:07:22 GMT

An article in Computerworld yesterday entitled "ISO officials, others dispute claims that Open XML