Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Thursday, March 23 2017 @ 11:16 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 @ 02:37 PM CST
Ed,

You asked:
Question - how long after the BRM do the results get published so the NBs know what it is they are actually supposed to vote on between now and the end of March ?
I _believe_ but can't say for sure, given that this continues to be an unusual  situation, is that Alex Brown is to do a Report of the Meeting (that may not be the exact title) that would go just to the NBs - I assume all 87 that will be entitled to vote.  I don't know whether there is a set format, or whether that's up to the Convenor.  I am told that this report can, but is not required, to be made public, but that's from a committee member, not from ISO/IEC JTC1 itself.

I have no idea how long it will take for the dispositions to be turned into specification changes; perhaps Microsoft and Ecma might have already started on that before the BRM(?)  If not, it's hard for me to imagine that a full new draft could be produced much before the end of the 30 day voting period, much less reviewed.

So this is just supposition, but that would mean that the vote would be based primarily on (1) the proposed dispositions as originally distributed, (2) the small number of substantive dispositions that were revised during the meeting, (3) the 200 easy text revisions, and (4) the Report of the Meeting.

One intriguing question to ask is this:  what about all of the dispositions for which small ad hoc working groups were appointed that never had time to report back their recommendations for discussion?  This indicates that there was an issue with the disposition, and that a better fix might have been available, but no way to take advantage of that better alternative.

  -  Andy
[ Parent | # ]
Give the man a break E-Man !
Authored by: E-man on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 07:59 PM CST
I did not mean to criticize his intentions. He had posted several comments were he had indicated he was interested in what flaws people were seeing in what he wrote. Since I was warning people elsewhere that his article was confusing and misleading, I thought perhaps the right thing to do was to comment here. Since he hasn't responded directly, I'm not sure if he appreciated the information or not, but it seems doubtful. Oh, well.

I suppose I was a little ticked off and embarrassed that I took his original title at face value. I went and posted a comment with the title "MS lost! OOXML rejected" at Groklaw. Once I understood the truth a little better (and remembered what the BRM was about), I posted a correction, but don't know who I mislead in the meantime. (It's still there if you care to look for it; I can't delete or edit my own comments.) That's very embarrassing to me. Maybe I should have known better than to trust Mr. Updegrove so much under the circumstances, but I did feel mislead, which is magnified by the embarrassment and concern that I mislead others. I, however, did the best I could to repair the damage that I had a part in causing. I thought Mr. Updegrove might want to do the same, if he was made aware of it.

What Mr. Updegrove is doing is a tricky thing. I'm no expert, but I know any flaws in what he writes have a cost. They will demoralize and confuse people on one side and the other side will take advantage of them for their own spin. OTOH, there's only 24 hours in a day, and only one Andy Updegrove. I was pointing out that people were getting confused (maybe he wasn't aware of that or why), but only he knows if he has the time or interest to fix things, especially since the new material is making the old less important. I'm fine with that.

Perhaps my tone came across a bit harsher than I intended. I certainly don't have any great communication skills, I know.
[ Parent | # ]