"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."

--Tim Bray, 2008

It ought to be no secret by now that ECMA damages the credibility of standards bodies as a whole. As we mentioned before, Microsoft is fully set and positioned to benefit from this, no matter the eventual outcome (it's not over yet).

According to the following report, the assertions above can be further validated [via]

The report applies the Brinkburn Analysisâ„¢ to evaluate the validity of Ecma's privileged status within ISO, one not enjoyed by any other Consortia, and criticises ECMA for having “virtually no representation for many points of view” and “no outreach and no liasons with other consortia”. Most damning of all is the conclusion in respect of OOXML - “It is a breach, almost, of common sense. Ecma, through its members, has created, with the exploitation of a loophole, a precedent that may well enable the breakdown of the formal standards process”.

The sadder development lies in the fact that ISO seems to be getting cozy with the IEEE at the moment. It could do to the IEEE what ECMA did to ISO and what Microsoft probably did to ECMA ( "you are well paid, shut up").

“Trying to help ISO rather than slam it is probably the way to go, but it's hard.”Trying to help ISO rather than slam it is probably the way to go, but it's hard. Alex Brown denies or defends problems he knew about all along, for example. He is probably trying to save himself from being sacked, having attempted a hideaway. Other in ISO lied as well.

Similar situation and solutions might as well apply to the Linux Foundation, but in a very different context. OSDL's 'successor' is important. Let's try to mend it, not slam it. It can be used against GNU/Linux otherwise (the civil wars routine), but it's not quite the same case with ECMA and ISO, whose significance is greater to standards, not source code. ⬆