One of my favourite odd computer games is Tower Of Goo (on Linux platforms it works 100% under wine). The challenge is that you build up your tower on weak foundations and it occasionally breaks down. It is real fun. Buts in political struggles I like the controlled demolition of lies, damn lies and statistics.
Slashdot: Counter-Claims On Flaws In OOXML Meeting
ericatcw writes "Critics1 have charged that last week's ISO Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) to decide the fate of changes to Office Open XML standards proposal was too perfunctory and deviated from accepted ISO practices, possibly in an attempt to smooth the passage of the Microsoft format. This week, the ISO 'convener' of the BRM disputed those charges, saying that voting to dispose of 900 changes to the spec at once and allowing 'O' Observer countries to vote were the correct moves. ISO released a statement backing him up. Also, Patrick Durusau, editor of the competing OpenDocument Format specification and a late convert to OOXML's passage, also said that claims the process was flawed were overstated
What is worth to consider about the slashdot article?
It reminds me of the wikipedia editing of the Open XML article. Claims are made, links to documents are set (e.g. the the claim "the EU" asked Microsoft to submit OOXML to ISO was linked to an EU IADBAC PEGSO recommendation to standardize its format internationally), but claims are not substantiated by the documents that were linked. Only that it takes you more time to debunk the lie and explain it than to make it. But lying or spinning on weak facts seemed to be very common practice. Usually you have more than two lies. In the example "the EU" (Pegso is just a low level committee of national officials) and "international standardization" (what MS did with ECMA-376, but it's no call for ISO standardization of a broken spec via fast-track). You can add the "asked". In fact it was only a suggestion.
What is wrong about the "reader's contribution" to slashdot above?
- the ISO statement does not discuss the convener's interpretation of the directives nor does it discuss potential breaches of formality. It explains the process and the upcoming steps.
- Patrick Durausau statement about "everyone got a say" didn't express "that claims the process was flawed were overstated". His own statement does not really discuss the process. It only indicated that he is no person to be taken serious by anyone who has insights into the process. Apparently the SUN employee was already involved with the submission of the specification to ISO via the ECMA committee.
- Alex Brown did indicate that 'voting to dispose of 900 changes to the spec at once and allowing 'O' Observer countries to vote were the correct moves." but he also says that if "a country has a complaint it can appeal formally". Studying the ISO directives it seems clear to me that a breach of formality happened — whether it was appropriate or not in order to reach a pragmatic result. It would be wise for him to stay neutral in this matter and wait for NB to ask for clarifications. In any case the underlying directives would need an update.
Open questions:
- can the BRM decide upon its own voting rules? In particular Brown's claim of sovereignty of the BRM needs investigation as the BRM is composed of delegations with a mandate.
- How were participants from NB precisely informed about the BRM in advance?
- Does Alex Brown's statement that there are no P-members in the BRM hold?
- Where is the "letter ballot" that would have been required according to the 9.5 provision he chose?
- Are usual complaint procedures for NB sufficient or is private litigation the appropriate path to get clarity on the matter, given the biased role of certain employees that also take the responsibility for fast-tracking the immature specification despite of so many objections or the continuation of process after the September ballot. ITTF is no trusted party.
- Weren't we told in advance by Alex Brown that member states can only vote one by one?
- Why does Alex Brown complain so much about transparency and public debate?