New Rules Created For OOXML Vote

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "There are new rules to follow for any NB that wishes to change their vote on OOXML after the lack of resolution at the recent Ballot Resolution Meeting. After comparing it to previous instructions, it seems that they only have until March 29th, they need to email several specific people, that email must be sent by certain people, and they need to confirm it in writing as well, most likely via registered mail. Even Groklaw's PJ, who made sense of many of SCO's filings, finds all the requirements a little confusing. But anyone who wants to disapprove of OOXML had better dot every 'i' and cross every 't' if they want their vote to count, if past behavior is any indication."

Comments

Re:They forgot the part about...

[Ed Avis]

'...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
'But the plans were on display...'
'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
'That's the display department.'
'With a torch.'
'Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
'So had the stairs.'
'But look you found the notice didn't you?'
'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'

ISO SQL editor's view of OOXML process

[pieterh]

Here's a little of what Jim Melton, the ISO SQL editor, had to say about the OOXML process:

You've written 6000 pages of specification largely in secret (and, I understand, recently added over 1500 more pages) and given the world five months to read, absorb, understand, review, critique, and establish informed positions on it. Worse, whether it happened because of unreasonable methods, pure random chance, or genuine and unexpected interest, the fact that the size of the JTC 1 Subcommittee that was to vote on the document suddenly exploded gives the appearance that somebody was trying too hard to stack the deck...almost as though it wasn't really desired to have too much real review.

BTW SQL was one of the largest ever ISO standards and took 20 years to debug. It was still smaller than OOXML.

And, Please sign the NoOOXML.org petition if you didn't already!

Bullspit

[pallmall1]

It does not mean that you have to use the result.

If governments start using OOXML for storing and processing public records, the public will have to use it to view public documents. I see this bogus "you don't have to use it" argument spread around the internet like fertilizer every time someone tries to justify the perversion of the standard setting process.

It stinks.

The parent post really seems to try to quickly skip across the "if" part of "if OOXML is accepted...". The acceptance process is supposed to prevent bad quality, unworkable standards from being accepted. A standard should work.