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?

Look at Alex getting grilled. He’s replying, but it’s not truly compelling. It’s like the powwow with Andy.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065958
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2923321820080229

Yes, the BRM failed. If you can find articles that suggest otherwise, please share. For all I can tell, Microsoft is already spinning and changing its tune (just watch their blogs). Call it “damage control” or “fallback”.

I remain unconvinced by your arguments, but as I wrote earlier, I expect a conferable amount of lobbying from Microsoft to come this March. Lobbying does not change a reality, but hand-overs of money, as we have recently seen, does indeed make a difference. I came to discover throughout my conversations with Stocholm, for example, that he works for a Microsoft partner.

Microsoft can never earn ISO for OOXML. It can try to buy ISO, but trying may not be enough. Buying it is not legal (watch what Bryan said about Microsoft). Regardless of the outcome, people deserve to know this truth about this breathtaking fiasco.

Mind you, I’ve received and come under endless personal attacks. This type of smear campaign consistently comes from pseudonymous or anonymous voices (it’s very libelous, but I cannot accuse unnamed individuals) and about 20-30 posts per day are now used against me. I can’t keep up with it, but I imagine something is behind this.

Having raised this concern in a disucssion with a friend he told me:

“Again two tactics: name calling and amnesia

The amnesia is interesting, because the articles and even whole magazines and web sites disappear. Microsoft astroturfers try it again and again. We saw just the other week with the developer tools question. They ignored the last 10 years and claimed that if there were any ‘alternative’ tools, why aren’t people talking about them or using them… Tricks like that often catch the unwary.

I often wonder if Microsoft employs cranks to write from their jail cells.

Their purpose is to drag you down to their level, if they can, and if nothing else burn up your time in name calling. They win if you write about them and their movement.”

That’s just why I rarely write about the abuse that’s directed against me (not here anyway). That helps them win.

Whether these are the OS/2-days Munchkins, I don’t know, but their names have been the same for about 10 years and some of them were involved in smearing the names of OS/2 supporters. I’ve heard about death threats too and I get my fair share of death wishes (which I ignore).

Have a look at the Tim Bray tale. It’s nothing new.

Starting with the US Head Of Delegation, who speaks for himself on this matter, not for the United States. Followed up by a startlingly incorrect blog post that Andy Updegrove put out – then picked up by a bunch of people who can only be described as breathing their own exhaust fumes.

See a very brief comment from the BRM convenor, Alex Brown, posted below Andy’s terrible and inappropriate rantings.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/comment.php?mode=view&cid=18785

The rest we will know a couple of weeks from now I suspect.

What is happening here is pretty representive of the sneeky, deceptive and underhand way that the pro-ODF crew have run things over the last few months.

This time around thought they have gone way overboard and the deceptions can’t be hidden in the same way as they have over recent months.