Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[News] [Rival] IEEE Rules Make Mockery out of Microsoft's OOXML and ISO

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Mar 24, 2008, 12:22:10 AM3/24/08
to
Pillay: OOXML debate and the IEEE code of ethics

,----[ Quote ]
| Harish Pillay is annoyed by the ISO OOXML process and thinks the conduct
| infringes upon his professional code of ethics. But his rules just don't
| apply.
|
| [...]
|
| 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.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48665/pillay:ooxml-debate-and-the-ieee-code-of-ethics


Related:

At the end: What we did in Geneva ?

,----[ Quote ]
| This person tried in saying that believes that we should not submit our
| proposal that asked the mapping, since there was no time at the meeting (just
| over three hours) to write the mapping document. We’ve said that our proposal
| stemmed from the premise that the ECMA had this document because they
| justifies “the need” of OOXML because it supports the binary documents legacy
| and it is also stated that there are still things that can not be translated
| (deprecated), they should have thoroughly studied this and at least have made
| the mapping.      
|
| I have never seen a person so nervous and ashamed in my life… He said that
| Microsoft should have this mapping and if we want, we can ask it to Microsoft
| but not ask it to ECMA. He said that ECMA was only responsible for creating
| the new XML schema and who do not have this mapping documentation.  
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html


ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out

,----[ Quote ]
| So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior
| meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they
| have not, and I know they have not.  
|
| So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare
| claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and
| they don't all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us
| little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to
| make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?    
|
| Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the
| BRM meeting?  
`----

http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html


Probe into votes on Microsoft standard

,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission is investigating the process under which a key
| Microsoft document format could be adopted as an industry standard - a move
| that would carry significant commercial benefits for the software company.  
|
| Officials at the European Commission's competition directorate have written
| to members of the International Organisation for Standardisation, asking how
| they prepared for votes in September and later this month on acceptance of
| Microsoft's OOXML document format as a worldwide standard. Without ISO
| acceptance, Microsoft could stand to lose business, particularly with
| government clients, some of which are becoming increasingly keen to use only
| ISO-certified software.      
|
| The ISO process has been widely criticised, however, with some members of
| national standards' bodies accusing Microsoft and its rivals of attempting to
| influence the vote.  
|
| Tim Bray, a member of the Canadian national standards body, called the
| procedure "complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit" in a recent blog posting.
|
| [...]
|
| In addition, in several countries, a large number of Microsoft partners
| joined the national standards organisations just ahead of a vote on the issue
| in September.  
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft said it openly encouraged its partners to participate in the ISO
| process, but was not funding any third parties doing so. The company said it
| would cooperate with the European Commission's inquiry.  
`----

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88e570a2-ea56-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


The Art of Being Mugged

,----[ Quote ]
| The four options presented were:
|
|     * Option 1: Submitter's responses (Ecma's) are all automatically
|       approved.
|     * Option 2: Anything not discussed is not approved.
|     * Option 3: Neutral third-party (ITTF) decides which Ecma responses are
|        accepted
|     * Option 4: Voting (approve + disapprove) must be at least 9 votes.
|       Abstentions not counted.
|
| We were told that these options are not in the Directives and that were are
| given these choices because ITTF "needs to act in the best interests of the
| IEC". I don't quite get it, but there appears to be some concern over what
| the press would think if the BRM did not handle all of the comments. One NB
| requested to speak and asked, "I wonder what the press would think about
| arbitrarily changed procedures?". No response. I thought to myself, why
| wasn't ITTF thinking about the 'best interests" of JTC1 when they allowed a
| 6,045 page Fast Track submission, or ignored all those contradiction
| submissions, or decided to schedule a 5-day BRM to handle 3,522 NB comments.
| Isn't it a bit late to start worrying about what the press will think?        
|
| We break for lunch.
|
| After lunch and after more discussion, the meeting adopted a variation of
| option 4, by removing the vote minimum. I believe in this vote the BRM and
| ITTF exceeded its authority and violated the consensus principles described
| in JTC1 Directives.  
`----

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html


Changes to the SC 34/JTC1 rules for changing your OOXML vote

,----[ Quote ]
| Personally I’ve had enough with on-the-fly rule and process changes with this
| whole thing, but if the increase in recipients is just to ensure that all
| changes get counted, I’m fine with that.
`----

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2135


New Rules for Changing Your Vote on OOXML

,----[ Quote ]
| It's so sad that no one knows in advance precisely how things are supposed to
| go. It leaves you having to try every possible thing you can think of to make
| sure you get it right. Did NBs get notices of this change, I wonder?
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080319130708601


Project 29500

,----[ Quote ]
| The BRM can change whatever it wants can it? A briefing message from the
| convenor of the BRM contributes to substancial irritation among the BRM
| delegates that are not sacked yet.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-42701/project-29500


Which version of the JTC1 directives applies: v2.0 or v3.0?

,----[ Quote ]
| The 5 months ballot started on the 2nd of April 2007. JTC1 directives were
| changed on the 5 of April 2007, in order to add a special chapter 13 wrote
| with the help of ECMA's Jan van den Beld about the Fast Track procedure. So
| which version applies to the current process? v2.0 or v3.0?
|
| [...]
|
| Can you change the rules while a process is running?
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45222/which-version-of-the-jtc1-directives-applies:v2-0-or-v3-0


Alex Brown updates the BRM rules today

,----[ Quote ]
| Alex Brown has updated his blog post about the voting rules at the BRM. "This
| was the wrong clause" he says.
|
| [...]
|
| Some questions for the audience:
|
| 1. Which one is the "normal JTC1 procedures"?
| 2. None of them mentions which majority should be taken. Simple majority of
| 50%, or 66% of P-members?
| 3. Where is the "letter" in the letter ballot?
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45179/alex-brown-updates-the-brm-rules-today

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 24, 2008, 12:15:48 PM3/24/08
to
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> Pillay: OOXML debate and the IEEE code of ethics

If the GPL is the antithesis of a Microsoft EULA, then the following
must surely by the antitheses of Microsoft's bizniz practises:

[quote]
IEEE Code of Ethics

As per IEEE Bylaw I-104.14, membership in IEEE in any grade shall carry
the obligation to abide by the IEEE Code of Ethics (IEEE Policy 7.8) as
stated below.

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.

Approved by the IEEE Board of Directors
February 2006
[/quote]

http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/iportals/aboutus/ethics/code.html

It's like reading an obituary of Microsoft: "What We Did Wrong", or a
Catholic Confirmation ceremony, where the initiate renounces Satan.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
16:15:13 up 94 days, 13:51, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.14, 0.19

Moshe Goldfarb

unread,
Mar 24, 2008, 12:31:32 PM3/24/08
to
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:15:48 +0000, [H]omer wrote:


> If the GPL is the antithesis of a Microsoft EULA, then the following
> must surely by the antitheses of Microsoft's bizniz practises:

snip---paranoia

> It's like reading an obituary of Microsoft: "What We Did Wrong", or a
> Catholic Confirmation ceremony, where the initiate renounces Satan.

Are Linux advocates really this paranoid and ignorant?

What are you guys so afraid of?

After all according to COLA Microsoft is going out of business so why all
the fear?


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

BingoBongo

unread,
Mar 24, 2008, 2:14:41 PM3/24/08
to
0 new messages