Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Thursday, June 29 2017 @ 11:14 AM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
It was just a mistake, no hard feelings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 10:38 PM CDT
No, I am saying that people make mistakes through any combination of innocence and slackness and the real subversion of the process is  to fail to recognize that and work around it. Some nations are not voting? Find ways to fix it and get on with business. Some stakeholder mistakenly offers to help other stakeholders against some local nationally rules? Find ways to fix it and get on with business. A draft comes along with many problems? Find ways to fix it and get on with business. A national body makes some silly and incoherent comments on a draft? Find ways to fix it and get one with business. A technology comes along that you don't like from organizations you don't like but to deny it and them would be unfair? Find ways to fix it and get on with business. The committee organization doesn't match NB interests? Find ways to fix it and get on with business!

But don't jump up and down hysterically. The ISO process is quite robust and it will come out of this with an enhanced reputation for following its procedures without fear or favour, and for finessing a good result. Standards people are very keen on objective evidence and exactness, that is their business, and they are not a receptive audience for speculation and scuttlebutt, for bullying and manipulation. No fun at all, really :-)

When you see hidden conspiracies everywhere, when every ice-cube is the tip of an iceberg, it gives you license to dismiss every process result that doesn't agree with your position as being another sign of sinister reach. (B.t.w., ISO has a rule that invited experts (such as me, or ODF editor Patrick Durusau) have to act in good faith when participating in SCs or WGs: it means we have to stick to technical matters and keep a strong sense of proportionality and fairness.) Of course MS *could* conceivably be paying bribes; of course IBM *could* be paying bribes; of course Iraq *could* be paying bribes; of course Andy Updegrove could be paying bribes (from his imaginary enormous OASIS slush funds) ; of course Mary Tyler Moore could be paying bribes; of course Anna Nichole Smith could be paying bribes from the grave, But the ISO process with its steady rhythm and international voting and staged transparency makes  that effort extreme difficult, risky and unlikely, because ultimately a standard is adopted on matters of content and form not individuals: technical issues not individual influence.  But saying that every offer of aid is a bribe, and that an offer mistakenly made and hurriedly withdrawn and made public is the same as a bribe, is scraping the barrel.

[ Parent | # ]