Slashdot Mirror


Format Standards Committee "Grinds To a Halt"

Andy Updegrove writes "Microsoft's OOXML did not get enough votes to be approved the first time around in ISO/IEC — notwithstanding the fact that many countries joined the Document Format and Languages committee in the months before voting closed, almost all of them voting to approve OOXML. Unfortunately, many of these countries also traded up to 'P' level membership at the last minute to gain more influence. Now the collateral damage is setting in. At least 50% of P members must vote (up, down, or abstain) on every standard at each ballot — and none of the new members are bothering to vote, despite repeated pleas from the committee chair. Not a single ballot has passed since the OOXML vote closed. In the chairman's words, the committee has 'ground to a halt.' Sad to say, there's no end in sight for this (formerly) very busy and influential standards committee."

2 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Hamstrung by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their bylaws probably prevent them from doing this except by a vote of all the P-class members.

    I've seen this sort of thing happen before, to smaller organizations. You get a huge influx of members for some reason, but then they stop participating. If you didn't anticipate this possibility when drafting your constitution or bylaws, and you have some rule in there that says "changes to the bylaws must be ratified by 50% of the membership" or something similar, you're screwed. You can't change the rules, because nobody shows up, and you can't do anything, because nobody shows up.

    Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself and reform under a slightly different name, with a better set of bylaws...

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Hamstrung by rainer_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard.

      I'd like to propose the wording "widespread document-format".
      Calling it a standard is too much honour. It implies "interoperability", which clearly was never, is not now and will not be ever on MSFTs agenda.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin