ISO and IEEE strengthen partnership for development of international standards

,----[ Quote ]
| The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Institute of
| Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) have signed an agreement to
| increase their cooperation in developing international standards. The
| agreement initially focuses on the subjects of information technology,
| intelligent transport systems and health informatics. The "partner standards
| development organization (PSDO)" cooperation agreement provides new
| opportunities to adopt and jointly develop international standards to serve
| the global marketplace. The agreement was approved by the respective
| governing bodies of ISO and IEEE following extensive discussions, and in
| consultation with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), U.S.
| member body to ISO.

ISO is controlled by a vicious monopoly. IEEE ought to stay away from ISO,
which Tim Bray says has a poisonous leech on it (ECMA/Microsoft and maybe
CompTIA too).


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. * * *


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. *

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? *

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 bull****" 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. *

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. *

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. *

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? *

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. *

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?

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?