As we indicated before (see this recent comment for example), organisers of the BRM are in 'damage control' mode. They try to pretend that everything is all fine and dandy. Alex even released an edited set of notes to please critics, but the Groklaw crowd demands more. It wants the rumoured audio recording. It wants unedited (i.e. unembellished) scripts. So do many of us.

“It appears as though the rules of the whole process have just changed 'on the fly'.”As it stands, we moved from secrecy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] to selective secrecy, so it's not enough. It's akin to what the Bilderberg Group is doing when it comes under scrutiny. It only shows what it wishes to show; whatever does not make the cut can be assumed a dark secret.

It appears as though the rules of the whole process have just changed 'on the fly'. Alex, who typically keeps quiet, has joined the discussion, implying that there is likely an element of truth in the claims. Do have a look.

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?

Another concern arises which involves Jan van den Beld, the man behind a lot of this mess.

The 5 months ballot started on the 2nd of April 2007. JTC1 directives were changed on the 5 of April 2007, in order to add a special chapter 13 wrote with the help of ECMA's Jan van den Beld about the Fast Track procedure. So which version applies to the current process? v2.0 or v3.0?

[...]

Can you change the rules while a process is running?

The concern here is of course that goalposts might be moved to serve Microsoft's agenda. Remember what happened in Switzerland (before September)? It was utterly appalling. ⬆