OOXML BRM Convenor: “It May Be Time to Start Again from Scratch”
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2008-05-21 07:42:49 UTC
- Modified: 2008-05-21 07:42:49 UTC
Alex Brown
has just said so.
Ultimately the situation raises questions which go to the heart of the relationship between JTC 1 as an entity, and its member bodies. Just who is in charge, the nations or the officials? The unfortunate state of the Directives have meant there have been too many occasions when officials have had to step in and save the nations from the folly of the Directives that they themselves approved. Like ODF and OOXML the Directives is (literally) a standard, a standard that has faults. Unlike ODF and OOXML, however, I am beginning to believe the Directives have got to a state where they cannot be redeemed by evolution and amendment. It may be time to start again from scratch.
Sounds good, Alex. Given the feedback from Bryan (see below), whom you succeeded, OOXML needs to be flushed and we need to "start again from scratch," to use your own words. Thank you for your honesty.
⬆
"This year WG1 have had another major development that has made it almost impossible to continue with our work within ISO. The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto. This delay will mean that these standards will appear on the list of WG1 standards that have not been produced within the time limits set by ISO, despite our best efforts.
The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be."
--Martin Bryan
Formerly Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 WG1
Comments
AlexH
2008-05-21 09:13:56
I'm not sure it's fair to twist someone's words like that.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-05-21 09:22:29
I did not say that he said that. Read carefully. I am sure that you, being an OOXML apologist, would be quick to defend it as usual.
AlexH
2008-05-21 09:26:04
Putting his words in the context of your own opinion implies that he agrees with it.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-05-21 09:48:18
Admission that the process is dysfunctional. He pretty much joins the voice of Bryan as far as I can tell, but he is less open and blunt about it (Bryan didn't mean for this to be publicly seen and he regretted that this had happened).
You're being overly pedantic, Alex, unlike those who attended and managed the BRM in Geneva.
AlexH
2008-05-21 09:58:50
-- Alex Brown, June 2006
He has consistently held this opinion all along, long before the BRM.
This still doesn't give you the right to twist his words. You said, specifically (of Alex), "OOXML needs to be flushed and we need to “start again from scratch,” to use your own words".
So, if I use *your* words to put forward my point of view, that's ok? Sure, let's try that. I give you your own words on Moonlight:
"Moonlight is fine", in the words of Roy, "it’s a great step forward".
Now do you see how wrong that is? They're your words, but not your opinion. You've done exactly the same to Alex Brown.
AlexH
2008-05-21 10:03:13
You see, that way you don't confuse his words about the process with your words about the OOXML standard.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-05-21 10:17:38
As for the rest, you're playing a game of semantics. It's an endless thing and your expectations from a blog are as high as you wish for them to be.
AlexH
2008-05-21 10:30:10
As for a game of semantics: yes, this is about semantics, that's in fact precisely the problem. It's significant that you think semantics is a game, and you feel free to ascribe meaning to those who obviously don't support your views.
Believe me, my expections of this blog aren't that high. You've admitted you don't read it or research it, but using someone else's words to espouse an opinion they don't hold is generally thought to be pretty bad form. It's bad manners, Roy.
Quentin Crisp
2008-05-21 11:33:13
Like many others I read this blog because it is entertaining. For the first month of having it in my list of feeds I thought it was some sort of comical parody site, but I couldn't work out what of.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-05-22 07:18:37