Harish Pillay is annoyed by the ISO process for the file format OOXML and contrasts it with the IEEE code of ethics:
We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:
1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
4. to reject bribery in all its forms;
5. to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences;
6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;
9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.
An ISO technocrat would probably stress now that ISO/IEC does not apply these IEEE principles and wash his hands. Admitted. I thought, I had the view ISO/IEC process participants would naturally apply principles like these in standardization. I was naive. The mere existence of a Code of Ethics is an indication that the ethics seems to contravene the common practice. Of course, no doubt, ISO is not bound by IEEE ethics.
Of course ISO got also its own code of ethics. This is what I found, it is much shorter which makes it much, much easier to get faithful compliance:
preventing conflicts of interest by communicating in a fair and transparent manner to interested parties when work on new standards is initiated and subsequently on the progress of their development, ensuring that market needs are the driver for the development of standards.
Yes, the needs of a market player for its own international standard became evident. And no particular problem with ISO communication policy emerged. Transparency can be much improved as always. But who am I to tell ISO how to make their standard process more transparent? ISO has the right to protect its intellectual property, I mean "copyright". Transparency does not mean that all documents get disclosed to the average internet joe. "Open" means that all your gold partners may get a seat in the responsible national committees. After all ISO also does not follow the EU rules for open standards but makes up its own rules for a more patent friendly "open standards" approach. ISO keeps neutral and respects all views. Some participants believe in elephants in the room and others object when they are red, because it makes it more difficult for them to shoot them with a blue elephant gun. ISO stays neutral and respects all the different views about Elephants and other serious business. So many issues require thoughtful technical discussions. Fast-track professionals help you with the rules. Another ISO suggestion for a more ethical standard process:
contribute to ISO’s actions to help its members from developing countries improve their capacity and their participation in international standardization.
Now, isn't OOXML a model student of these ISO ethics ("Taking into account the development dimension")? Who knew in advance of which importance the unaltered adoption of OOXML for a majority of these nations would be?
For the first time Microsoft does listen to all nations:
So Mr Cheong pleaded to us, "Dont give up this chance for Malaysia to be heard. If we vote Disapprove, Malaysia will NEVER be on that table! We have already implemented OOXML in our products, and if its not standardised, the format will change!"
Oh Noes! Malaysia will be blacklisted! Microsoft will go dark again! We will never see the light in our documents ever! The world is going to end!
Harish Pillay is not convinced and follows his own IEEE ethics:
I am finding that the ooxml debate is not compliant with my ethics. I have seen/read/know of items related to #4 above and seen efforts to undermine #5 above.
Ultimately, it is a battle of corporate interests against technical accuracy. Throwing out ooxml in its current form to the original authors to come back with all the proposed fixes included and to submit to a proper non-expedited process is what we need. I do not want my country to be held accountable to agreeing or disagreeing to something that has issues - even if these "issues" can be resolved post-approval.
