No Lessons Learned by ISO?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 15:55:29 UTC
Modified: 2008-11-25 15:55:29 UTC

ISO Sold Out to ECMA

According to the new text which is hosted in Andy Updegrove's Web log, ISO is more interested in burial of evidence (and itself) than in self punishment and cure. Using gentle words, Andy explained why he is troubled.

Why troubled? Because these elements, when added to those that come before, basically add up to a ratification of the conduct of the Geneva BRM. To my reading, not one single element of Recommendation 5 addresses any of the concerns raised relating to the BRM - the voting procedures adopted, the amount of time to be provided in advance to consider proposed dispositions, or the timing of the delivery of a complete specification prior to a vote (admittedly this last element is beyond the scope of the BRM itself, but this concern could have been the subject of a further recommendation).

For information about the unspeakable BRM, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. It's akin to the ACTA, which can almost be characterised as white-collar crime [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 5].

As Groklaw points out, linking to Exhibit A, double standards at ISO prevail as well: "In reducing the number of alternatives to a reasonable minimum, JTC 1 and other SDOs have demonstrated that it is not necessary and may not be desirable to choose only one alternative or option for standardization. Further, JTC 1 notes that the cycle of innovation in the ICT sector has resulted in the continuous introduction of new technologies that improve upon existing standards. Any attempt to choose only one standard would ignore and threaten to inhibit the cycle of innovation that continues to fuel this industry. Therefore, JTC 1 recognizes its commitment to ISO’s and IEC’s 'one standard' principle; however, it recognizes that neither it nor its SCs are in a position to mandate either the creation or the use of a single standard, and that there are times when multiple standards make the most sense in order to respond to the needs of the marketplace and of society at large."

“They fail to establish universality, which renders them moot.”Putting all the corruption involved aside for a moment, it is clear that ISO has grown irrelevant because it fails to respect the rule which speaks of "commitment to ISO’s and IEC’s 'one standard' principle." This, as Benjamin Henrion pointed out last week, means that "ISO is dead for software standards." They fail to establish universality, which renders them moot.

This latest decision which is made in retrospect may be -- as one must remember -- carried out by an ISO that is already occupied by self-serving cronies who perfume their own sins and hope for history to dissolve gracefully, then be rewritten.

Speaking of ISO being ripped apart from the inside, worth watching is the following list of attendants that contains people who are on Microsoft's payroll, such as Rex Jaeschke, Jean Paoli, Doug Mahugh and Isabelle Valet-Harper. It was the same in the BRM and other decision-making phases. Valet-Harper was mentioning the meeting in Jeju, so it could be related to the ODF hijack [1, 2]. The European Commission is hopefully watching this closely.

Speaking of ODF, I exchanged some E-mails with IBM, criticising them for foolishly allowing Microsoft to get involved in ODF after they had fought it viciously, if not illegally. For more information about ODF, here is a report from the latest ODF workshop.

The OASIS ODF Adoption TC and the new OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC met informally at the OpenOffice.org 2008 conference in Beijing, on November 6, 2008 for an all day workshop.

Playing diplomatic games with Microsoft is pointless. Companies like Google, Oracle, IBM and Sun should turn a cold shoulder to Microsoft after what they had done. History supports such a decision and so are continents that declared Microsoft an abusive monopolist. The industry does not need Microsoft anymore. Microsoft is crumbling anyway. ⬆

Comments

AlexH

2008-11-25 16:18:43

I'm not going to comment further on the ISO situation, but it seems pretty clear to me that you can't argue that ODF is an open standard whilst simultaneously trying to bar Microsoft (and IBM don't really have a choice in that matter either, never mind your suggestion).

All Microsoft can do is make suggestions to the committee. They have the same voting rights as anyone else.
PeterKraus

2008-11-25 17:55:51

"All Microsoft can do is make suggestions to the committee. They have the same voting rights as anyone else. " Well, it's obvious, that they don't have. And that's the whole point of this.
AlexH

2008-11-25 18:04:40

They don't have the same voting rights? Based on what?
SydneySider

2008-11-25 19:34:32

I see it somewhat differently. I work for a dev company that uses OOXML, we thought long and hard about the options and decided that there was benefit to our users. Frankly while the take up of OOXML isn't huge, the take up of ODF in our user base (who are mostly US and Australian fortune 1000 companies) is pretty much zero from what we can work out.

I get the impression that there are folks out there (this site is an example) who have convinced themselves that ODF is the answer and that OOXML is bad on a level that clouds any clear thinking beyond that thought.

These individuals are so convinced of that fact, and so convinced that their conclusions are the right ones, that they can't believe that any free thinking individual would come to any other conclusion. Therefore it is obvious that anybody who says or does anything that favors OOXML must have been bribed by Microsoft, or by one of their lobbyists.

In reality, in a free thinking universe, you have to come to terms that educated people will look at a bunch of facts and come to different conclusions.

An impossible thought for the Roy's of this world, who believe that they are right and everybody who does not agree with them are clearly corrupt.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 21:08:32

They don’t have the same voting rights? Based on what?

Based on their continued attacks and sabotage of ODF.

They are doing it again at the moment.
AlexH

2008-11-25 21:26:42

@Roy: their sabotage is nothing to do with TC voting rights, I'm afraid.

@SydneySnyder: jooi, what kind of documents are you generating? I have very little against OOXML as a standard per se, but the XML model for Word documents is pretty ugly.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 21:44:00

@Roy: their sabotage is nothing to do with TC voting rights, I’m afraid.

Apologism noted again.
AlexH

2008-11-25 22:04:38

I think you need to look up the word "apologism" before accusing me of something.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 22:09:14

"It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors." [source]
AlexH

2008-11-25 22:47:03

@Roy: you seem to think that my repeating facts about the TC voting regime gives you any insight in to what I think on the subject. It doesn't.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 22:59:29

This post goes beyond this. We both know it. That's the whole point.
AlexH

2008-11-25 23:00:52

No, that's not the point at all. PeterKraus was suggesting that MS have special voting rights in the ODF TC. That's factually incorrect.
xISO-ZWT

2008-11-25 23:01:02

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana (Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1).

How many times does the consumer need to be "raped" by a monopoly to say, "that's enough!". We already seen past actions from Microsoft, pillaging public funds through corrupt officials. After denigrating, then with Intel's help sabotage the OLPC project only to be let back in; still trying to dictate how it should be managed.

ODF is clearly a standard managed by OASIS. Microsoft wants to be included to see how they could infect and corrupt whatever they can, be it ODF, VMWare, OLPC, etc. There can be no compromise with Microsoft or anyone associated with it. If you hang around pigs, you smell like a pig.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 23:09:47

Alex, you consistently avoid questions about Microsoft's behaviour. You treat them like another cuddly player.

Relax, Alex. Microsoft is not hiring at the moment.

Did you see the link I gave you to their latest attack on ODF?
AlexH

2008-11-25 23:10:00

Looks like you need to start lobbying OASIS then, given Microsoft are already contributing specs. to ODF 1.2.
AlexH

2008-11-25 23:11:41

@Roy: honestly, I could give two figs about whatever argument you think you're having with me. I plainly haven't avoided any questions because you haven't bothered to ask any. Your inability to follow a conversation is chronic, and it's because you fire from the hip and don't bother to actually do any reading.

I corrected someone else's mistake. That's not apologism, that's stating fact.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 23:15:28

Care to explain why you rarely comment about Microsoft's behaviour? You love nitpicking.

So, Alex, how about the anti-ODF study from Microsoft's Partner Group?
AlexH

2008-11-25 23:26:30

@Roy: "I love nitpicking"? No. I made a comment, PeterKraus responded to it, and I corrected him. That's not nitpicking, that's a "conversation".

As for the anti-ODF study: I haven't read through it, and I'm not willing to take your word on the contents. The specific beef you have with their OOXML comments appears to be this section:

OOXML, because of its better compatibility with the legacy format, would have been a better choice than ODF as the single standard. However, any format where a vendor has such a head start with a compatible product would not be the choice of vendors hoping for a level playing field.

I don't see that much to disagree with there. If you live in a .DOC world - which, like it or not we do - OOXML makes more sense than ODF because your files migrate better. They're also right that having OOXML as a single standard would have been completely anti-competitive.

As I said, I haven't read the report in detail, and it's on Microsoft's website so it's clearly biased. But I don't see much in their key findings which is factually wrong.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-25 23:31:31

You're steering away from the key point.

...And by the way, it's biased not because Microsoft grabbed a copy; it was written by Microsoft turncoat Michael Silver. The whole thing is OOXML promotion and ODF dissing. And Microsoft wants to 'help' ODF? As opposed to helping a one-vendor lock-in-slash-format?

Wake up. You're trying to lull people into a false sense of comfort.
AlexH

2008-11-25 23:47:31

@Roy: You asked me a direct question about what I thought of it; on what planet is my answer "steering away from the key point"?

And actually, having a copy on their website does make it biased. It may also be biased for other reasons, but frankly I don't understand why you're getting pissy over a point we agree on.
SydneySider

2008-11-26 03:51:06

AlexH - as per my earlier point you have to FULLY agree with Roy, if you don't it quickly becomes obvious that Microsoft are sending you large brown paper bags full of cash and he will call you on it!

Roy, I haven't read the Gartner report, and don't intend to. However, regardless of the content, to suggest that Gartner are in some way bias because a Microsoft employee posted a link to their report on a blog is pretty close to insanity.

If a Microsoft employee chose to post something on their blog about the sky being blue would that mean that the sky was colluding with Redmond in some way?
xISO_ZWT

2008-11-26 09:23:43

Gartner is a group of analysts.

“Analysts sell out - that’s their business model… But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.” (pg. 54)

–Microsoft, internal document http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-26 09:25:22

The guy who wrote the report is Michael Silver, too.

Do some research. ;-)
Ian

2008-11-26 13:39:30

Just wondering, is the comment "Relax, Alex. Microsoft is not hiring at the moment." going to get one of those red tags at the bottom of it or is that only reserved for people who dissent?
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-26 13:52:01

Only chronic personal abuse got 2 people tagged like this.
stevetheFLY

2008-11-26 14:08:05

That is an utter lie.

Roy simply tags people in an attempt to discredit them because he cannot win in a fair argument. Have an eye on him how he dodged direct questions!

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-26 14:24:24

Hey, "eet". How's it going?
stevetheFLY

2008-11-26 14:46:07

Try distracting with this childish behavior all you want, Roy, it's plain to see you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Novell and M$ co-operate and a year later the world hasn't ended, neither has Novell. openSUSE is now steered by an elected committee and has just dropped it's EULA in favor of a license akin to Fedora's. Microsoft hasn't sued anyone. Mono is a commercial success with the Gaming industry and home users, being included in Ubuntu, Fedora and every other big distribution.

None of your tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theories has come proven right and the community has left people like you behind, as shown by the growing number of doubtful commenters on this blog show, questioning your reason and your methods.

Seen like that one might even understand why you try to stigmatize straight-talking people like me with three red lines of tagging: What else remains for you to do if you don't want to simply admit that you were wrong from the beginning?

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Bob Jones

2008-12-22 20:27:56

I have a couple of comments. First, for Alex if he is still here.

Alex, I would like an answer to a questions I have. In the comment phase, 6 nations submitted objections. Those were just dismissed by the committee. Why? I note that afterwards, Microsoft found that they can't implement OOXML either. It was supposed to match what they were doing in Office 2007, but didn't. Probably the result of to much work in to little time. The current claim is that they will have ODF support in the next update (due in January). The objections seemed to me to be pointing out the conflicts. If that had been fixed, then it would have been a more workable standard. ODF supports the basic usibility, but not all the functions/features of Word. It also supports some features Word lacks or is deficient in. The spreadsheet standard in ODF is also very weak currently. The presentation/slide show part is simalar to the state of the word processor.

last, an observation. this site "Boycott Novell" is actually a Microsoft hate site. You will not get anywhere with the authors if you don't recognize that. They are boycotting Novell because Novell signed a development agreement with MS.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-12-22 20:31:36

last, an observation. this site “Boycott Novell” is actually a Microsoft hate site.

It's not a hate site. It's a site that opposes corruption and provides details about it. Had Microsoft ceased its pattern of well-documented corruption, it would receive less attention as such.

No Lessons Learned by ISO?

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts