Slashdot Mirror
OOXML Vote and the CPI Corruption Index
Tapani Tarvainen writes "It turns out there's an interesting correlation between Transparency International's 'corruption perceptions index' and voting behavior in ISO's OOXML decision. Countries with a lower score (more corruption) on the 2006 CPI were more likely to vote in favor of OOXML, and those with a higher score were less likely. According to the analysis, 'This statistics supports with a P value of 0.07328 the hypothesis that the corrupted countries were more likely to vote for approval (one-tailed Fisher's Exact test). In other words, simplified a bit: the likelihood that there was no positive correlation between the corruption level and probability of an approval vote, that is, this is just a random effect, is about 7%.' Of course, correlation doesn't prove causality."
Countries like India and China ... home to over 33% of the world's population - have voted "NO". Countires like Cote' de Ivorie and Cyprus have equal voting rights.
This population index anomaly must be rectified, before the ISO can regain any credibility as an International standards organisation.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The questions which are relevant for standardization can, and therefore should, be always decided in a fact-oriented, principled manner. Otherwise the corruption problem will always remain regardless of voting weights.
Sorry /., but this is the sort of crap reporting that is persistent on the web and (because they're desperate to retain viewers/readers) is becoming the de facto standard in print and media journalism.
Appending "Of course, correlation doesn't prove causality." to the end of an article strongly implying causality in every sense, doesn't absolve the reporter from the false conclusions he/she implies throughout the rest of the article.
That the correlation was run at ALL implies that someone was 'looking for something' - suspect 1. The layer upon layer of dependent statistics leading to a very authoritative-sounding "the likelihood that this is a concidence is 7%" makes it sound very scientific and accurate - suspect 2
Sorry, this is FUD passed off as news supported by phony statistics.
-Styopa
First off, it just goes to show you how beholden the US government is to Microsoft money. Second of all, it shows you why the US branch of a certain worldwide NGO based in the US has been so slow in adopting the methods of its parent...because, oddly enough, International has seen fit to partner with Transparency International. Your average USian knows nothing of TI, and those that do tend to poo-poo them as being insignificant.
Given the inappropriate use of the Fisher's test, questionable use of a one-tailed model and p > 0.05, I'd start with worrying about having proven correlation.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Another intersting point coming out of all this the role of ECMA International
formerly European Computer Manufactureres Association - dont see many of them around these days).
ECMA is fully accredited by ISO and in ists search for a new role as a standards body did
a nice job producing a standard for the orphaned Javascript ( except for changing the name
to the disease like ECMAscript).
However since then other "standards" developed by ECMA have been:-
-- the programming language C# ( C "sharp")
-- a Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)
-- a CLI binding for C++
-- Office Open XMLOffice
Anyone spot a pattern here?
The other problem is that ECMAInternational is essentialy a club of computer software and
hardware manufacturers and unlike national standards organisations (ASA, BS, DN etc.)
does not have any public interest mandate; it exists only to serve its members and
to join you need to be a large software or hardware manufacturer.
I have no problem with any industry forming a club to standardise things among themselves
but for an industry association to be the main sponser of an ISO standard seems plain
wrong.
Microsoft for one seems to have spotted an ideal vehicle for turning proprietary products into standards.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
I've put up a little website with some initial thoughts
Your cause is interesting, but I'm afraid there's a lot more to do than a barebones 'vision' page, so to create a standards body able of replacing ISO.
ISO has created over 16500 standards, and publishes ~1250 new ones each year. Yes, that means several new ones each day. Those include food safety, environmental protection, oil and gas, ship and automobile building, basically everything.
Computer formats comprises but a minuscule fraction of ISO's work.
OOXML was overthrown at ISO, isn't this what you wanted after all.
So the system works, no need for anti-establishment rebellion for anti-establishment's sake.
>>so the causal relationship is not really at issue.
He was talking about the article, the misapplication of statistics in particular, not whether there were irregularities or not.
Sweden has a low corruption index, but there is evidence of irregularities there. See, I just used evidence to trump the statistics in the article...
It makes me wonder what the value of having so many standards is. Isn't a standard supposed to be a single authoritative source / guideline on how to do something? If you have 500 competing standards or an organization whose sole purpose is to churn out standards then that dilutes the standards that come out of the organization, doesn't it?
Perhaps a simple example would be the Imperial measurement system versus the Metric system. If we had one global standard (Metric most likely) wouldn't that make life a lot easier for international joint ventures of engineering and such?
Dictionary.com says:
standard-noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Of course, it is statistically a proven fact that the safest place to stand is in the exact middle of the road. The data doesn't lie. The people analyzing it do!
The game.
No, MS-OOXML hasn't been "overthrown" at ISO, at least not yet. There's going to be that "ballot resolution meeting" in February 25-29, 2008 in Geneva (I've already booked my hotel room, since hotel bookings can be a bit difficult in Geneva if attempted on short notice) and then there's going to be another vote. In my opinion it'd take a miracle for MS-OOXML not to get passed then regardless of how many of the substantial comments the "ballot resolution meeting" manages to resolve.
So the system works
No, it doesn't. It's totally broken. And if in the end the voting result happens to be the correct one (rejection of the "fast track") after all, that won't be the case because of a trustworthy process based on legitimate, valid arguments, but rather it would be the case because of the successful application of comment-bombing and similar tactics by the opposition.
no need for anti-establishment rebellion for anti-establishment's sake
I have seriously tried to work within the existing system, with the only resulting success being that I have learned just how badly broken it really is.
Another proven fact is that the safest place to stand in the universe, for a human being, is on the surface of the Sun (or else give me the name of someone who died or was injured there). The data doesn't lie. The sample used does.
So let me see if I can distill this a little.
You said (paraphrasing) "The system only works if people of good character are actively involved."
Congratulations, you've just described everything that involves people. In the entire world. In the entire history of humanity.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
No, it was not overthrown. It was delayed for a few months so M$ could bribe the remaining countries.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
A "working system" is one that works in spite of people of bad character and one that does not depend on people of good character.