Slashdot Mirror
OOXML Critic Fired From Finnish Standards Board
Shirke writes "A Finnish computer magazine reports that Finnish Standards Association has fired Mr. Lassi Nirhamo (article in Finnish). Some excerpts: Mr. Nirhamo was chairing the OOXML standard proposal meeting. During the meeting Mr. Nirhamo asked other board members to be excused of his duties and voice his opinion as a private citizen. After this was granted he criticized the standard proposal and resumed his duties as chairman. Mr. Nirhamo has now been let go due to a 'lack of trust.' Independent observers have assessed his chairmanship as 'excellent' and 'one of a kind.' The Association is accepting applications for the position. Anyone interested?"
What possessed you to post in English on an English-mostly place, when the link is in Finnish? You're an ass, and Shirke is a poor "editor."
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
I'm in!
± 1 Freakish
Back on topic, personally I've got no issues with someone posting a foreign language link, and providing the interesting bits in English. I'm certainly interested in viewing the opinions of other countries.
Getting fired for something that's on record that you not only asked permission to do, but got that granted permission documented.
You speak Finnish then? I don't, so I can't tell what exactly he was fired for. However, it seems unlikely that he was fired for speaking as a private citizen, so much as for the content of what he said.
Look at it this way - if I asked my company for permission to speak candidly, and it was granted, and then I told them that I'd been stealing stuff from them, or selling secrets to the competition, I'd be fired. Not because I spoke candidly, but because of what I said.
Until we know exactly what he said, we can't really tell why he was removed.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
No, Im pretty sure that being bought off is a requirement to hold chair on a committee. So, get millions from Microsoft, then they'll consider you.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
No you wouldn't, you'd be fired for what you did. Big difference there.
If you asked to speak candidly at a meeting, were given permission and you stood up and said "Our products suck, no one I know likes them and we're a laughing stock", a good company would maybe want to hear more details as part of an improvement process.
Then again, maybe if you work for a company that's a laughing stock, inability to take criticism is probably a respect aspect of the corporate culture and being fired might look good on the CV.
I don't therefore I'm not.
If the definition of the chairman's job is to be impartial and to make sure that all sides get a fair hearing (which it may or may not be), then by speaking up as a "private person" with strong views in the middle of a hearing, the chair has just questioned his own qualifications for the job. Consider the effect on the possible outcome -- the committee votes against OOXML, and Microsoft is going to cry foul -- the chair, who runs the show, was biased against them from the start. It discredits the committee.
Suppose a judge in a trial stood up in the middle and said, "I'd like to speak as a private person for a moment, and I think the defendant is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY! Thank you. Now on with the trial."
I don't know if impartiality is required of the chair in this organization. It certainly isn't on US congressional committees, but a standards organization isn't supposed (in principle, obviously) to be about politics.
I piss off bigots.
Bottom line is that there is really no such thing as "permission to speak candidly" - anywhere.
It can help if you want to be frank - but you're ALWAYS going to be remembered for what you say, so be careful about what leaves your mouth...
Try a relevant analogy: You're a project leader at a company, ask to speak candidly, say, "I hate this project and I wish it would just die", are you really expecting to be allowed to continue leading that project?
Er, no, that isn't a relevant analogy. The committee's job wasn't to promote MS's standard, it was to judge it. If a company was evaluating a potential expensive purchase, and the team leader candidly said "well let's be frank, this product sucks" before the "official" evaluation was over, people would either laud him for his frankness, or argue with his premise, but they sure as hell wouldn't fire him!
Of course, if the Finnish committee sees its job as promoting Microsoft products, then of course your analogy would be correct -- and the committee should be charged en-masse with corruption.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Remember when Judge Jackson told a reporter what he thought of Microsoft coming into his court with blatant lies and fake demonstrations. His ruling was overturned because of his *bias*.
Judge Jackson broke the three cardinal rules of being a judge:
1. You do not talk to the press.
2. You DO NOT talk to the press.
3. YOU DO NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.