The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Norway and Germany, There Are No Irregularities : Oliver Bell’s weblog

Norway and Germany, There Are No Irregularities : Oliver Bell’s weblog — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:54:08 GMT

PingBack from http://osrin.net/2008/04/01/norway-and-germany-there-are-no-irregularities/

Open XML devine standard international

Weblogul lui Zoli — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:45:44 GMT

Deși la votul din vara trecută nu a trecut, Open XML a fost de data asta ratificat ca International Standard

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Dr. Manhattan — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:46:46 GMT

Jason: Either you are completely brainwashed by your employer or you are the most incredibly cynical of its minions. It is plain disgusting that after the "World Corruption Circus brought to you by Microsoft (tm) " that all of us have witnessed you still have te gall to pretend to do the PR damage control for them. You keep trying to charge IBM of the very conduct that Microsoft has been developing from the beginning. I am sorry to invoke the Godwins law, but that is just Goebbels' nazi propaganda tactics. Most people mad at the people like you at Microsoft are not stakeholders in IBM, Sun or any other of the business competing with Microsoft, we are just normal users who are in the know, fed up with the constant old lock-in and forced obsoleteness tactics that your company keeps trying to exert upon us through incompatible and ever-changing document formats. We are just users that value freedom above money,OpenOffice.org, KOffice, users, BSD and GNU/Linux users fed up of people like you in your company lying to us, trying to make us waste money and time, trying to force us to buy products we dont want because of the de-facto monopoly on the desktop computer market. We are just users that are fed-up with your company and its dirty tactics, your company are losing us as customers, but also our trust, respect and goodwill as citizens, by the thousands. And it will come the time when the people that could be Microsoft's best customers if it behaved differently and delivered products that would be desirable on its merits instead of being forced upon us, will become its main competitors, because we have woke up and are starting to dennounce the dirty tactics of your company, and to reject ist products (Vista anyone?), but be careful: we are very tech savvy people and we also promote our choices: Our family, friends and employers rely on us for technology counsel, and we are counseling not to choose your company, neither trust it. It is very sad that thanks to the ISO being so naively shortsighted as to allow the abuses in the standards process and this fake standard to bear the ISO stamp, many public institutions and governments will fall into the trap and will keep wasting taxpayers money and subsidizing your employer. But they eventually realise that the emperor has no clothes. We will be there helping them to do so.

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

arduino — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:37:12 GMT

Go the the parliamentary level. Standards Bodies are not trustable, especially when the Standards Norway excuses are written by you know who.

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

jasonmatusow — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:03:18 GMT

Dr. Manhattan - I know there is little I can say that will ameliorate your concerns. I really wish you hadn't brought Godwin's law into this (making the comparison you have) because it is distasteful to me in the extreme. Aside from your clear lack of judgement on that issue, I think you both raise an important point and should also take a moment to really look at the broader context. First, to your point about trust of business practices. That is a fundamental issue for any business and MS is no exception to that. In fact, I hold myself and everyone I work with to both the letter and spirit of the ethics we espouse as a company. The steps taken by the company to work on openness and interop over the past 7 years have been transformative for the company. As for your taking a step back...no one is forcing you to use a Microsoft product. If you think there are other technologies that offer better value for you - by all means, use them. If though, you still believe that Free Software is not part of the commercial context of the software industry - and that real $ are drive real activities - then you are sadly mistaken. I recognize that there remains a segment of the developer and user population seeking to follow the central philosophical and licensing approach of Free Software - but you are standing on the shoulders of the billions of dollars invested by large commercial players who are making those investments for a reason. As for IBM and Microsoft's conduct throughout the Open XML process - both participated with the intent to be successful. Both politicized the issue. Both lobbied. Both appealed to their partners and customers to join them in their approach. Etc. Etc. Etc. I do not view the world through the same rose-colored glasses that you do. I speak with customers of all sizes and in all vertical segments. They are tech savvy, they are value-minded, and they are highly critical of all vendors - holding all of us to a very high bar to perform for them. I'm willing to stand on the merits of our technology and business with those customers any day. I'm proud of the work I've been doing for a very good company. Sorry that doesn't jive with your world view.

Thanks

Jason

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

jasonmatusow — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:05:24 GMT

arduino -

You should read the Norway section again in this blog post. The Standards Norway position was written by...yes, you guessed it...Standards Norway. The process challenge is a legitimate part of the lifecycle (you can even find it well documented in the JTC 1 directives). I'll keep my mind open to it if you will.

Jason

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

quux — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:40:19 GMT

Dr. Manhattan: You say "You keep trying to charge IBM of the very conduct that Microsoft has been developing from the beginning."

I don't think that was the insinuation at all. What I saw was more along the lines of 'We're a black kettle. We've always said so; there are no rules about being black when you spend your days in the fire. But my my, isn't it ironic to see you, a black pot, calling us a black kettle without achknowledging your own blackness?'

And yes, invoking Godwins Law was just tacky.

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Dennis Byron — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:14:40 GMT

Good idea. How about adding information about Microsoft's protest in Inida so as to be fair and balanced?

DIS29500 is now IS29500 ... Open XML Wins! thanks everybody!

Pranav ... Blogging — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:19:08 GMT

Yes ..really thanks everybody, people who were "for" and people who were "not for". I believe that everything

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Kimo — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:36:45 GMT

One place leads me to another. Just an open question: why are Microsoft employees to active writing blogs and articles about this matter? Actually I'm amazed to see such activity in support and defence of a process that probably has damaged ISO for a long time to come. Why celebrate? Or isn't Microsoft concerned about the condition of such an important organization?

I'm very concerned since nobody outside of the Microsoft's inner circle knows what a possible approval would mean. Will it mean what it has in the past? Then we're damned. Or has Microsoft suddenly made repentance and changed its policy towards openness so suddenly? I wish so, but even the employees and supporters of Microsoft can't deny the history.

I'm working every day with administration of Microsoft software, so you might expect me to celebrate a possible OOXML approval. However, frankly speaking, I'm so sick and tired of the mess Microsoft and now Trend Micro (just examples) is doing. It's hurting progress a lot, don't you see that? I can't get a pure working horse of an operating system from Microsoft any more, because it's so stuffed with all kinds of DRM and other similar junk. But please, what does that have to do with my working stations? Anyone?

Alright, our company has improved because of this. Today we're at least using a mix of systems: FreeBSD, Linux and Windows. Will this OOXML vote strengthening Windows' position in my working environment? It has just helped me to understand the importance of making the right brave choices: next time I set up a company it will be Microsoft free from scratch (and that says an administrator of Microsoft systems)!

Thanks Microsoft and all your bloggers and supporters for making this clear to me!

Open XML ou IS 29500: les liens de la semaine

Open XML — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:13:30 GMT

Analyse intéressante de Jan van de Beld ex secrétaire général de l’Ecma à propos de l’hypocrisie de certains

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Scott B — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:23:10 GMT

Where can we expect challenges?

1) ISO rules not being followed.

1.a) Voting rules on ratifying a standard.

Past ISO standards were approved by consensus, so it is little wonder the Byzantian 'break the deadlock' rules had to be invoked. Some blogs have recounted theory on how documents say it works, but obviously this process had never been tested before and arguments abound.

1.b) Failure to meet needs

It has been argued that OOXML fails to meet its own criteria for judgement as a standard. i.e.: One cannot use this document to create text that will guarantee proper compatibility with Microsoft Office. This immediately bogs down in 'interpretation'.

1.c) Failure to provide required documents

It has been noted there exist rules requiring a release of all changes in a final document after the BRM meeting. This document did not arrive in time for the vote and still hasn't arrived. Hopefully there is a rule allowing ISO administrators to ignore this fact as needed to equate editor instructions with a final document.

1.d) Suspicious Rules Adjustments

At several points, ISO acceptance rules were changed in a manner that allowed OOXML to get the support it needed. I consider this a wash. Nobody ever had to push a doc through this way before, so of _course_ they had to adjust rules along the way. Remember, ISO was built for consensus standards, not voting one in. Such irregularities are to be expected the first time they had to put these rules in practice.

2. Corruption of Standards Bodies

2.a) Stuffing of technical committees

The explosive growth in standards committees worldwide with MS affiliates and partners is suspicious in the extreme, but isn't against any rules. It merely discomforts the people who worked there before the influx.

2.b) Placement of Dead Weight on ISO

There is no question that members added to push OOXML through the process are now causing trouble. They don't do _anything_ else! Much work is now at a standstill because these new members fail to respond to repeated requests for input. If these members get removed for continued apathy, their votes might wind up annulled. I consider this a greater concern than most other problems as it directly challenges the very existence of ISO as a working body.

2.c) Negating Input from Technical Committees

Several instances have been noted of Technical committees that normally provide the recommendation on such standards being slandered, ignored, sidestepped, or removed from consideration. This may look bad, but in the end the ISO only responds to the official NB and any internal irregularities are the responsibility of that country to deal with, not ISO. I don't foresee a challenge here succeeding.

2.d) Bribery

Currently the few instances where technical partners were given concrete considerations in the form of discounts or favors are too few and too difficult to prove. Like 2.c I see this as irrelevant to ISO unless it resulted in the NB representatives themselves being challenged on this score.

3. Trade Restrictions

3.a It has been noted the WTO has rules about what is allowed in the form of standards to support competition worldwide. The passing of OOXML to favor a single corporation in favor of existing standards could cause trouble. I think however that MS forms a strong enough lobby worldwide to keep this conflict from being acted on.

4. Anti-Trust

4.a Much has been made of the fact a convicted monopolist is allowed fewer actions than other industry players. Activity on OOXML may raise eyebrows, but seems unlikely to change votes on the ISO directly, leaving the standard intact.

Overall.. MS has a good chance of keeping OOXML as an international standard, provided that they prod lazy partners to _continue_ working on the _other_ standards that ISO is supposed to be completing. Failure to do so is likely to earn ire at the highest levels in the ISO administration.

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Wayne — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:42:28 GMT

Jason,

Here's Andy Updegrove's most recent blog posting, if you haven't read it yet you should:

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080405104109438

Wayne

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Brett — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:32:50 GMT

So,

You've laid this whole thing down like this type of "To-and-Fro" legal style of rule and process jigging is a normal part of the ISO Standards Ratification. All this talk of subversion by IBM and how "They Did It Too" so it's all good is the biggest load of tripe I've heard. Can you point to me any other ISO DIS that didn't have Microsoft involved but had NB's stacked by a single vendor's motivated interest followed by as much quantifiable opposition in these NB's particularly by the long running memberships (most notably the academic and government organisations) and so much vocal opposition in the form of legitimate technical concerns that still exists in a barely passed standard that we're still yet to see?

Just one??

I have no doubt Microsoft will prevail in this standard ratification and likewise the next million it'll choose to pseudo-standardise after this one. It's just that it won't be implementable in any true open way in it's current form. Even if it weren't so open to interpretation, the patent encumberances are just unforgivable. I'll also not hold my breath on seeing Microsoft Office Anything (tm) fully implement any current ISO version of it's OOXML Ever though I'll pleasantly retract my statement if I'm ever proven wrong.

A bit about me: I don't do anything for anyone involved in this mess, I work for Aussie Defence and only know about this largely because of the open source stuff we're working with at the moment.

Don't mind my Australian spelling please, it isn't wrong where I come from... :)

re: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path

Fiery Spirited — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:17:35 GMT

>IBM was the #1 contributor of comments worldwide. In fact, they were so pleased with their comments that they made sure they were replicated and echoed from national body to national body. In some countries, IBM was responsible for more than 90% of the submitted comments, and everywhere they added essentially the same comments to their work in national bodies. They got their wish – their comments, indeed, 87%+ of all comments, were resolved in the disposition process and the national standards bodies felt that the process had been successful.

You claim IBM raised most of the opposition. Yet there was 3500 comments on the DIS text with 1100 unique issues raised, that means an overlap that is at most around 30%. WIth IBM using the same objections in many countries we can with minimal effort deduct that IBM must have a played a pretty small part of the opposition.

The 90% overlap Microsoft are so fond of retelling is caused by a NB that failed to do critical review besides the issued raised by IBM.

If Microsoft had been correct about IBM causing most of the opposition to OOXML the percentaqe of unique concerns compared to comments would been far lower.

Btw the reason so many issues was "resolved" at BRM are that limited time prevented that Ecma:s suggestion would be examined. Every country could only raise one or two dispositions for discussion. During the final block vote most countries abstained, but a few voted yes on everything...most probably more would have voted no if they had time to hear the numerous objections.

OOXML: rumors, innuendos, and outright lies!

AbsoluteVista — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:17:10 GMT

When you tell a lie often enough, it takes on a patina of truth each time it is uttered, and after a

OOXML: rumors, innuendos, and outright lies!

AbsoluteVista — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:39:49 GMT

When you tell a lie often enough, it takes on a patina of truth each time it is uttered, and after a