The result, by Andy Updegrove: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319...
Sean Daly interviews Andy Updegrove http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080229171250199
I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided not to approve the OOXML specification. There simply wasn't enough time to discuss the numerous problems and the numerous proposed solutions. The final decision will be in 30 days time, but since the issues raised last September are officially unresolved, rejection by ISO is almost certain.
In the interview, Andy explains the importance of standards in society (access to government), why the ISO process was creaking under the strain of this application, and some comments on anti-trust law.
And if this puts you in the celebrating spirit, get involved in Document Freedom Day this March 26th: http://documentfreedom.org/
On 01/03/2008, Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
The result, by Andy Updegrove: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319... Sean Daly interviews Andy Updegrove http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080229171250199 I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided not to approve the OOXML specification. There simply wasn't enough time to discuss the numerous problems and the numerous proposed solutions. The final decision will be in 30 days time, but since the issues raised last September are officially unresolved, rejection by ISO is almost certain.
Not quite - their job was to put lipstick on this plucked chicken. This didn't make it any more of a human than before, featherless biped or no. So it's not dead until it's actually got a stake through its heart.
I have long theorised that this meeting was a red herring, and Microsoft will instead have been working on corrupting the national bodies that voted "no" or "abstain" - since the "yes" voters are fine.
- d.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided not to approve the OOXML specification.
I'm not sure they were voting on the specification itself; just editorial amendments to it.
Objectively, the OOXML spec. is now better than it was in the first round of voting, so more countries may vote in favour to approve it. I wouldn't say, then, that rejection by ISO is almost certain - I would say probable, but I think it will be _very_ close.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I wouldn't say, then, that rejection by ISO is almost certain
Ah, yes, you're right. I drew an overly optimistic conclusion from Andy Updegrove's blog. That blog entry now has interesting updates and comments: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319...
And I've collected more links in a blog entry today: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/coming_month_...
- I would say [rejection is] probable, but I think it will be _very_ close.
I've heard more pessimistic opinions from people who were in Geneva saying that final approval looks very realistic, so it looks like we've got a month of solid work to do :-/
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided not to approve the OOXML specification. There simply wasn't enough time to discuss the numerous problems and the numerous proposed solutions. The final decision will be in 30 days time, but since the issues raised last September are officially unresolved, rejection by ISO is almost certain.
Tim Bray, who was part of the BRM, has a blog post revealing how jaded he is on the whole matter.
Summary: A lot of good work was done, but the process is irretrievably broken. [...]
What Was Good · The people. With a very few exceptions, everyone really tried hard to work together and make the document better. [...]
What Was Bad [...] This was horrible, egregious, process abuse and ISO should hang their heads in shame for allowing it to happen. Their reputation, in my eyes, is in tatters. My opinion of ECMA was already very negative; this hasn’t improved it, and if ISO doesn’t figure out away to detach this toxic leech, this kind of abuse is going to happen again and again.
URL:http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/02/29/BRM-narrative