03.03.08
Gemini version available ♊︎BRM: [B]roken process [R]atifies [M]onopoly (ISO/IEC DIS 29500)
“It’s a Simple Matter of [Microsoft’s] Commercial Interests!”
–Senior Microsoft Rep about OOXML
Our [cret 2688 last post about the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) in Geneva] looked at irregularities, as well as the failure of the process as a whole [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It is now becoming clearer that rules were disobeyed. Have a look:
Rules altered in OOXML standardization process
Rules changed on the fly to meet five-day deadline to discuss concerns with specification; final vote due in 30 days
Rob Weir has some more details:
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.
The following short piece speaks about these manipulations which we continue to find and rests confidence in Europe's investigation of this abuse.
Unrecoverable Application Error or UAE or BSOD to the nonsense ooxml stuff. So, some of the stuff was hand-waved through. But the end is here. We have to expose all the underhanded, manipulations that MS has done everywhere to buy votes. I am glad that the EU is investigating.
The BRM in Geneva is not over yet (practically it is). We need to find out what really happened there and why (c/f Tim Bray: “Process Irretrievably Broken... Complete, Utter, Unadulterated Bullsh*t”).
Over the weekend, we have been seeing that attempts are made to communicate with people who attended, especially those that are less reluctant to talk about what they saw. In fact, these people face the risk of lawsuits, merely for ‘daring’ to speak about it (leading to publication). What on earth really happened there, especially on the 5th and final day? What will Microsoft tell people about it? Since it’s embargoed, Microsoft could make stories up. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA