Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Tuesday, June 27 2017 @ 09:36 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Voting Procedure
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 03 2008 @ 04:33 PM CST

"OBVIOUSLY (given the red hot controversy here) voting procedure was discussed in minute detail, and decided, in consultation with ITTF before the BRM started."

Why weren't the ballot papers given to the NBs days before the BRM so that they could fill them in in a less rushed manner?

This would have allowed significantly more time to discuss specifics at the meeting.
(Since it has been reported that almost a day was spent discussing the mechanics of the ballot).
[ Parent | # ]
Meeting procedures
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 05:42 AM CST
Alex, the reply I made to a previous post is more appropriate here so I'll restate it:

"In all the different (political) meetings I've ever been in as either a participant or a chairman, it was customary for the chairman to draw up the agenda for a meeting according to the following rules:
1) schedule proposals on which the decision is a formality (to do away with stuff that can be implemented) and decide on them right away
2) then do a tally of the remaining proposals and draw up a schedule on what needs to be discussed
3) suggest (controversial) proposals where a large number of the participants indicate their urge to be heard to be taken off-line, either to resolve them by the end of the meeting or at a later date.
4) schedule proposals with little comments to be handled first.

Alex, as far as I can tell the way you approached this BRM is the exact opposite of what I described above and (as you indicate yourself) in the end leaves a lot of room for interpreting the meaning of the votes on the comments not being discussed.

With 20-20 hindsight, would you have chosen a different approach to the BRM, for example with the (universally) tried and tested method I described here?"

The example you mention about the loose bracket AFNOR stumbled upon to me is a prime example of a proposal on which the decision is a formality. Would it have been too much work to lump the resulting dispositions together and be done with them at the beginning of the BRM?

For that matter, how many BRMs have there been in the (recorded) history of ISO where more than 1000 dispositions needed to be addressed? Doesn't that (presumably) low number flag this BRM as something special, where special measures need to be taken in order to keep it manageable in order to send a CLEAR signal to all NBs who need to vote in the next days to come?
[ Parent | # ]
Still Misleading
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 09:12 AM CST
The abstain meaning is wrong.

Many NB use abstain to indicate we can't vote for this but we don't want to embarrass anyone over this either. 

Now that you understand that let's look at those votes again 6 for, 4 against, majority abstain.  Vote fails; didn't obtain consensus for the changes. 

BRM should report out that it worked a small fraction of the issues, managed to get a number of improvements voted on to make to DIS 29500.  However, on an overall vote the BRM could not recommend the results to be standardized.   Based on progress made at the meeting it would take at least a year to get to the point where a majority of the members would vote in approval.

Based on this, we would suggest that no additional vote be taken, and the issue referred to the maintainers/enhancers (OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC) of ISO/IEC 26300 for consolidation in that standard. 

If MS had done this in the first place no one would be in this current predicament.  MS knew this but chose to attempt to take a short-cut through ECMA.  Well, that was a bad decision, now they have to go back do things the right way.  Too bad.]  Further, ECMA needs to be stripped of their fast path in ISO, until they fix their standards process so that it represents all sides (not just some big producers).  ECMA should have coordinated with OASIS on this standard, their failure to do so is reason enough to strip them in this case (we can cite that this is not the first time for ECMA to have serious problems with a standard at ISO).
[ Parent | # ]
  • One more question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 05 2008 @ 05:23 PM CST
Still Misleading
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 04:21 AM CDT
"Finally, I deplore your mention of the Nuremburg Defence (“only following orders”) in relation to my role as convenor. Invoking the Holocaust (however indirectly) as a suitable parallel to a document format standardization project shows a total failure of perspective."

Yes, it does. It is important to be responsible.

I fully understand that the adoption of the ECMA dispositions is a matter of good pragmatism.
[ Parent | # ]