It continues to amaze that a panel supposedly deciding on openness is actually a secret [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It never ceases to amaze that even a lawsuit can be brought against attendants if they speak out. What is this, Alcatraz?

Yes, we have been told not to broadcast the specifics of the BRM. Additionally we will be sued if we take and publish any pictures of certain delegates. It seems Switzerland has some super privacy laws. I guess thats why Swiss Banks are so popular.

I happen to be communicating with someone who attends the BRM and writes about it in USENET, but he stubbornly believes that OOXML is okay (and even expresses this conviction against a single real standard in a newsgroup focused on Linux). He refuses to speak out about the BRM, but still, why must it be a sin? Moreover, why are Microsoft lobbyists allowed to secretly infiltrate Geneva and do their thing? Is ECMA (Microsoft) trying to shut out opposition while at the same time its employees are running up and down Geneva, as well as meeting the delegates between sessions? This is astounding.

Watch Microsoft's perspective of thew whole thing (Jason Matusow):

I know that many delegations are under specific guidance to not blog or discuss outside of the meetings. The BRM process was designed to promote the improvement of specifications, not to tear them down. I think this is a very important point to keep in mind throughout the week....

Shame on you, Jason. You now redefine the purpose of the BRM. This company has been redefining all sorts of things recently. ⬆

“You know what Microsoft’s problem really is? They’ve lost the ability to feel ashamed.”

--PJ, Groklaw