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

It works the other way too

[blowdart]

But anyone who wants to disapprove of OOXML had better dot every 'i' and cross every 't' if they want their vote to count

Or anyone that has been "bought" (if that is going on) and wants to change their mind has it hard too; but we shouldn't mention that should we?

Re:It works the other way too

[blind monkey 3]

Special rules for any company has to be viewed with suspicion, special rules when a company has actually been caught buying votes is even more worrying.
Worse than that, some people are actually accepting this as SOP and still want to give the "benefit of the doubt" to them.
A lot of irregularities have occurred in favour of Microsoft, rules have been bent in favour of Microsoft, my suspicion is this will favour Microsoft. You believe, I gather, that it will not favour anyone.... why the change? Again, another change in procedure.....

Re:It works the other way too

[Anonymous Coward]

Or anyone that has been "bought" (if that is going on) and wants to change their mind has it hard too; but we shouldn't mention that should we?

You're assuming that the rules are going to be applied impartially. Who's to say that procedural errors by pro-OOXML voters won't be winked through, while procedural errors by anti-OOXML voters are used to disqualify their votes?

Yeah, I'm cynical. So sue me.

Why?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Is there word anywhere on an official reason for this change in voting procedure? I'm not seeing it in TFA or in any of the things it directly links to, but I might be missing it.

Moral of the story

[ShieldW0lf]

ISO doesn't matter anymore. They didn't matter because they were "The ISO", they mattered because they were a place where politics could be set aside and everyone could work together to make standards that work. That was a unique and precious thing. Now they're not these things anymore, and therefore, they are defunct.

MS didn't drag themselves up a notch here, they just destroyed something special in the world because it got in the way of their dominance. A sad thing.

Re:Moral of the story

[MenTaLguY]

It has more to do with the significance of the thing destroyed in this case.

Re:Moral of the story

[Zeinfeld]

Its still completely wrong. Standards bodies really do not matter in the way people at slashdot imagine they do. ISO has a complete set of standards for a networking infrastructure, nobody uses it. The Internet was the competition.

During the early 90s many if not most people who were working on the Internet thought it was only a matter of time before the OSI stack replaced it. Didn't turn out that way despite ISO accreditation.

ISO standards do not need to be open or unencumbered. It is not a democratic process.

All the standards process means is that if OOXML is accepted and someone wants to claim their product is OOXML they have to comply with the spec. It does not mean that its open, unencumbered or any good. It does not even mean that it has to work. It does not mean that you have to use the result.

Re:Moral of the story

[rucs_hack]

This worries me particularly, since I've spent the last few years of my life developing something which should, in my opinion (aka, earnest hope), become a useful world standard.

I won't say what, because I have neither interest in showboating, nor, and this is more important, the money to reimburse my free web host, a personal friend, for the slashdotting that might occur. In my small, and somewhat specialised field, what needs to be known will be.

back on point...

If powerful companies can hijack standards authorities at will, and years of sweat and tears can be beaten by the dollar alone, then academics like myself, who are just starting out, stand no chance, no matter how good our research is.

Changing your mind is not always "wishy-washy".

[Haeleth]

You should have to do more (this much more? Not my decision but it does seem odd) to change your vote. Why'd you change your mind? What made you vote for it in the first place?

IIRC several countries voted "yes with comments". If their comments were not addressed satisfactorily, they might now want to change their vote. What's "wishy-washy" about voting conditionally and then deciding to change your vote when the conditions are not met?

Voters might also have initially missed problems in this incredibly long and complicated document that other participants found; they might therefore have voted "yes" initially, and now desire to change that vote to "no" because the evidence available to them has convinced them that the initial "yes" vote was mistaken. What's wrong with changing your mind when presented with new evidence? What's wrong with listening to competing viewpoints and recognising that the person arguing against your initial belief has valid points?

Or they might have been convinced by Microsoft representatives that OOXML would end global poverty, and have now concluded that the truth doesn't match up to the PR. If someone is convinced by a hard-selling salesman to buy a product they don't need, are they being "wishy-washy" when they cool off and cancel the order? No, they're just displaying common sense.

Above all, why are people so hostile towards anyone who changes their mind these days? Sticking to your guns regardless is not strong or smart, it's stubborn and stupid. We should applaud people who publicly change their opinions, not condemn them. Wait for someone to actually dither indecisively, or flip-flop repeatedly between two options, before you condemn them. There's nothing wrong with merely taking one side initially and then changing your mind.

(And, no, I'm not being partisan here. I would say the same in defence of someone who had initially voted against OOXML and had decided, based on the outcome of the BRM, that they would now support it.)

Here's why

[g2devi]

> But these are rules for how National Bodies
Precisely. These are National Bodies, i.e. slow moving bureaucracies.

If you shorten the dates and in addition to that require extra lead time for written letters to arrive to all the right people, you've both dramatically shorted the review time and caused problems for any national body that scheduled their meeting late (so that maximum review was possible). If you think it's easy rescheduling a meeting of all these key people much earlier than what everyone agreed to *months* in advance, you've never held a meeting of any importance.

And by limiting decent to a single person, they've also increased the chance that the will of the national body could be thwarted by a bribe.

> If those groups, with their staffs and lawyers, can't figure out how to change their vote, and to use ISO procedural
> rules to make sure their votes are properly counted, perhaps they shouldn't be able to change their votes. I'm sorry, but this isn't exactly rocket science...

Sorry, but that's BS. If I give you rules that are impossible to follow, no number of lawyers or staff can follow them any more than if I ask you to draw a Frobizoid without explaining what a Frobizoid is, or ask you to fill out form G in order to get Form F but in order to get form G you have to fill out form F.

And even if the rules are unambigious to an elite lawyer, the more complicated the rules, the more likely that votes can be thrown out because of procedural rather than technical issue. Given the mistrust in the process so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if No to Yes transitions happen (because Microsoft knows the rules they wrote) but Yes/Abstain to No votes are rejected because of non-obvious procedural issues.

Ask yourself this question. Is ISO in place to be a place where lawyers must solve puzzles to get to the next level, or is it a place to create valuable world wide standards that have been proven technically?

PJ is getting sloppy

[DRJlaw]

[PJ] Here's what the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 page says about it, and go by this, not by my guess as to what they mean:

* In regard to the September 2, 2007 JTC 1 ballot on the fast track DIS 29500 based on Ecma 376, the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) was held in the week of February 25-29, 2008 at the International Conference Centre Geneva http://www.cicg.ch/en/index.php. Within 30 days after the BRM, national bodies voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote from any of "approve", "disapprove" or "abstain" to any of "approve", "disapprove" or "abstain". Any NB wishing to change its vote must inform ITTF of this intention in writing by 29th March, 2008.

Vote change shall be communicated by email addressed to Keith Brannon (brannon@iso.org) as well as Maho Takahashi (takahashi@iso.org), Martine Gaillen (gaillen@iso.org) and yourself on copy.

The following shall be indicated in the subject. "Modification to the vote on DIS 29500 - Country (National Body/e.g. JISC)"

The name of sender shall be mentioned in the email.
* In accordance with the JTC 1 Directives, the progress of the specification will depend on the revised status of all previously-received votes after the BRM.

Please see SC 34 N 932: Frequently Asked Questions regarding DIS-29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting for more details.

[PJ] I don't know if that [omitted] means you have to do more than just email, or who exactly you'd write to if there is a separate requirement. We get to guess.

No, we don't, and PJ and the rest of you ought to know better.

If it originated as letters and is perceived as letters, it's writing. The law and the rest of the world have long since abandoned the idea that a photocopy or a facsimile or an email are somehow not writing.

Any ambiguity as to the meaning of "must be in writing" is resolved by the requirement that the vote change shall be communicated by email. Not may be communicated by email. Not shall be communicated by email and something they forgot to mention.

Any semblance of ambiguity in the last point is resolved by the lack of a street address, facsimile number, telex identifier, or literally any other means of communicating with the three individuals other than their email addresses. So much detail concerning the email, but they forgot to mention the rest.

As for the actual requirements:

Sending a message to three people. Unconscionable - Never 'cc' anyone. Having an identifiable subject line. Evil - Short messages from an unknown email addresses are never identified as spam. Copying yourself. Unnecessary - Messages never get left in draft form in mail programs, and people happily accept the consequences of their incompetence. Including the name of the sender. Completely unnecessary - SMTP is unspoofable and contact@yourco.org can easily be verified as having the authority to change the vote of a national body.

This is either an elaborate joke, or PJ has partaken of far too much of the Kool-Aid.