Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Thursday, June 22 2017 @ 02:19 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Give the man a break E-Man !
Authored by: Andy Updegrove on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 03:25 AM CST

Thanks very much for the support.  Yes, it was a very hectic week.  I got no sleep on the way to Geneva (can't sleep on planes) and was working (keeping up with client work), presenting or in meetings every day from 7:00 AM to 11:00 (Thursday I took the train to a client meeting in France).  Friday night I was catching up and communicating with folks till 3:00 AM.

Necessarily on Friday I was dealing with information as it came in and trying to figure out what to make of it.  The only real mistake I made of significance - and one I regret - was interpreting the "abstain" votes as rejecting the process.  In fact, as the piece now reads, it was an effort by the delegates that chose this option to vote only on the dispositions they had a position on and say nothing about the rest.  That's not support for those dispositions, but it's not appropriate to characterize that as "rejection" either.  Only those that chose "disapprove" as a default option should properly be put in that category.

I was traveling home all day on Saturday and out of email contact for most of that time, so I was not able to make this change until I arrived home.  Since then, I've been in touch with members of many delegations, and tried to update the blog as much as necessary, while not agreeing that the vote taken can fairly be taken as a majority approval, from a legitimacy as compared  tio a procedural point of view, of the 900 dispositions that were put to a single ballot.  That is simply more than I think can validly be said, given accounts (such as that from Greece) that some of those involved had never had time to read them all, and few if any (especially among the smaller delegations) had much time to consider and vote  on them over night.

Turning to your question about attendance at the BRM:  my recollection of the rules is that those who had voted against OOXML over the summer had a duty to attend, while those that voted otherwise had the right to attend.  That's not as illogical as it might sound, since changes (as Frank Farance has noted) can make things worse as well as better.  So it seems fair to me that even though someone had voted to approve, under normal situations would have a right and a purpose to attending.  Under the current circumstances, of course, the motivations for those that voted "yes" last summer and "yes" again at the BRM would be of interest.

I think that it's particularly telling that the US delegation voted "no" as a default on the 900 dispositions at the BRM, notwithstanding the fact that the INCITS Executive Board members voted for the US last summer  to adopt OOXML without any improvement at all. 

  -  Andy
[ Parent | # ]
Give the man a break E-Man !
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 09:19 AM CST

I understand your passion, but I find nothing wrong in the points raised by E-Man or in his raising of those points, even as a person who has developed a strong bias against OOXML.

You are correct that Andy did as best he could to get out early and fast. But, it should be early, fast and accurate.

You point out more than once that MS will have marketing out in full force; that's not surprising to anyone. But, "two wrongs don't make a right". You don't fight Microsoft falsehoods with opposing falsehoods. That's a slippery slope that we currently see ISO using...
[ Parent | # ]