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

Odd

[nateman1352]

What why exactly such a confusing voting process?

Wait, what?

[glavenoid]

[...]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[...]

Snips and emphasis mine, but still, I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm a bit slow, but just what does this mean? ...

BTW, what's that smell?!

I guess this proves it

[JeremyGNJ]

It has long been rumored that Microsoft wants to actually show that ISO is not such a great standards organization. I guess this proves it. As usual, Microsoft wins either way.

Doesn't stop voting, but being wishy-washy

[yotto]

This seems to only affect people who voted for it, and now want to vote against it.

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?

Re:Moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

It also shows how desperate M$ is becoming.

Why the outrage?

[krlynch]

I fail to understand the outrage in this case. Yes, the OOXML specification sucks and is thoroughly umimplementable. And Microsoft is evil. Check. But these are rules for how National Bodies must proceed to change their votes. We're not talking about some uneducated John Doe here trying to punch a butterfly ballot ... we're talking about institutional groups like ANSI, BSI, JISC, and Standards Australia. 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...

Re:Moral of the story

[CrazedWalrus]

I was reflecting a few evenings ago on the fact that we, as techies, still play with computers because they're fun and we like to build/break/explore stuff. It used to be that people like us could make something in our garage that would make the world stand up and go "Whoa!" (just ask Woz).

Fortunately for our paychecks, and unfortunately for our hobbies and killer business ideas, computers have grown into An Industry. It's gotten very difficult (not impossible) for a person in their garage to do much worthwhile due to patents, the head starts of competitors, and the fact that the lonesome programmer is severely outgunned by mature software shops. It's a world where good ideas are flattened by a truckload of money from established players. In other words, it's become business as usual -- the same as in other established fields like financial services or retail merchandise.

I guess that means that we need to learn to play hard ball. I don't really know what that means, except that I think we, as a group, tend to spend a lot of time complaining about the corporations, but don't really spend much time figuring out how to get that same power for ourselves.

I think the only way would be for the F/OSS world to figure out how to work "like" a corporation without necessarily being one. The first thing to do would be to define what it is about a corporation that gives it its competitive edge, and then figure out how to replicate each point for F/OSS as a whole (as opposed to just Mozilla, Red Hat, etc). Superior software and development models will only get us so far. At some point, we need to learn to fight at MS's level.

There's no sense challenging someone to a duel of swords when the other guy wouldn't think twice about pulling a gun. That just means we need to work on our marksmanship, or we don't stand a chance.

Re:ISO SQL editor's view of OOXML process

[TheRaven64]

For one person to have reviewed the entire document (and you really need one person to do it, because otherwise you will only spot local inconsistencies) in the time allotted, they would have had to have reviewed seven pages per hour, every single working hour for the entire five months. For comparison, a peer-reviewed conference paper is typically around 7 pages (8 including references and abstract) and takes a good half day or so to review. A document of this size will take longer per page, since you will need to take notes and cross-reference them.