Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Thursday, March 23 2017 @ 11:08 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Reply to Alex Brown
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 01 2008 @ 11:40 AM CST

> Andy why don't you say who the anonymous delegates you spoke to are?

Witchhunts are lovely this time of year…

> What you're claiming is essentially unverifiable, and as Alex was the convenor I'm sure many will be concerned that he doesn't concur with your thoughts.

Alex is free to point out his concern by posting here. His lack of description is as unverifiable as the anonymous delegates, no?

> As I understand, ISO have rules about what information is giving out by whom and when.

ISO controls blog posts now? It’s understandable why delegates would refrain from wanting their names published, because of unprovoked FUD from certain members of this process.

> I know that Bob Sutor disagrees with this, and imagine you may as well given that you've chosen to ignore the etiquette - but by choosing to ignore and not being open and transparent about who you're referring to you effectively poison the discussion as those who wish to respect ISO's rules are unable to engage on the substance of your comments.

This blog post is trying to be open and transparent, what little etiquette this BRM has earned be damned. Saying little about the facts and pulling the Microsoft PR partyline is poisoning the discussion, because you don’t say what really happened. Have you read Tim Bray’s blog post? He thought the process was bullshit. Yet yourself and Brian have praised it… who is likely to believe your version of events?

> At least this way we could loop in the folks giving you the information and find out whether they've got an axe to grind, are simply mistaken, or have uncovered the mother of all conspiracies.

How about you post what is wrong with this article, and the anonymous delegates will be informed thus.

Anonymous

[ Parent | # ]
Reply to Alex Brown
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 01 2008 @ 07:22 PM CST
Steve,

My primary source was Frank Farance, the Head of Delegation for the US.  Frank affiliation with either Microsoft or IBM, and, as a Head of Delegation, was in all HoD meetings.  He's also an old standards hand, and at least once corrected Alex on a vote that was about to be taken in a way that would have been invalid.

I conducted an extensive interview with Frank after posting this blog entry, which I hope to have posted (after he reviews my transcription of his comments) on Monday.

  -  Andy
[ Parent | # ]
Reply to Alex Brown
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 02 2008 @ 06:27 AM CST

Stephen from Microsoft says:

<blockquote>As I understand, ISO have rules about what information is giving out by whom and when. I know that Bob Sutor disagrees with this, and imagine you may as well given that you've chosen to ignore the etiquette - but by choosing to ignore and not being open and transparent about who you're referring to you effectively poison the discussion as those who wish to respect ISO's rules are unable to engage on the substance of your comments.</blockquote>

I could not agree with you more Stephen.  During this round of the DIS29500 BRM, I see that the Microsoft blogging machine is already claiming victory and is doing their best to "poison the discussion" concerning DIS29500 with mis-information and rumor long before any official information is released and long before final information is in.  At least sites like this one and Groklaw acknowledge that their information is preliminary and subject to change at a time when Microsoft is already claiming final victory.

Meanwhile other parts of the "Microsoft Blog Machine" are doing their best to shut down any-and-all bloggers that have opposing or conflicting viewpoints to the MS party line and any blogger in particular that attempts to provide analysis of the vote based on the publicized rules of the BRM + whatever scanty information can be verified from the BRM.  I suspect that over the next week, we're going to find out what really happened behind those closed doors and I suspect we're going to get really sick at the extent of the MS arm-twisting that went on behind those closed doors.

The OpenMalaysia blog has already condemned ECMA with the statement that any substantive changes (that would have required MS to modify Office2007) were routinely shot down at the BRM and not even considered for evaluation or vote.  That statement alone says worlds about how MS has ignored or corrupted the ISO rules during the BRM and now you come along and want the world to wait 'until official information is released' while the time period for the NB votes and review expires and while MS continues it's mis-leading blog posts, behind-the-scenes arm-twisting, 'discussion-poisoning' blog comments, vote buying and various astroturf campaigns around the world unhindered.

Who is it exactly that is choosing to respect the ISO rules ?   You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Microsoft respects the rules of the IEC/ISO JTC 1 given that the EU has just launched an investigation into their conduct during the ballot period ending September 2, 2007 or convincing me that Microsoft is "respecting the rules" given the recent news that MS is using NGOs to pressure the India standards body using an astroturf campaign based on Microsoft-generated form letters from Microsoft partners giving 'fake' support to DIS29500 to change their vote, or that Microsoft is respecting the ISO rules when Jason Matusow has already blogged that the BRM is a huge win for the DIS29500 and quotes Tim Bray's blog post out of context in an attempt to manufacture some support for this blatant and increasingly desperate spin.

Ed

-- An individual citizen of the net that prizes openness, software freedom, marketplace choice, and open standards, but most of all integrity and honor in all dealings - business, personal and international.

[ Parent | # ]