Slashdot Mirror
Possible Manipulation of OOXML Process In Poland
michuk writes "IBM's representative for KT182 (the committee empowered to vote on OOXML in Poland) accused the committee's chair of intentionally manipulating the process. A letter from the president of the body overseeing KT182, sent a month ago to the committee chair for distribution to all committee members, was never distributed. The letter recommended that, if consensus were not achieved on the OOXML vote, then Poland should abstain. This follows up my recent report on the OOXML process in Poland (also covered by Groklaw), it looks like things are going bad this time, at least as bad as in October." The EU is already investigating the Polish process based on complaints last fall. Is anyone tracking all of the allegations and investigations surrounding OOXML?
Heise reports that the vote process in Germany was manipulated, too, although on a more obvious level:
link (German only, sorry)
The members of the German institute for norms (DIN) were basically unable to vote "no", only "yes" and "abstain" were allowed.
I sent the following yesterday to:
Mike Low <mike.low@bsi-global.com>
Jean Stride <Jean.stride@bsigroup.com
Adrian Stokes <Adrian.Stokes@cat-ltd.demon.co.uk>
I have not received a reply.
UKUUG is seeking a member who will represent them on the tech advisory committee as our current rep no longer has the time.
**** email sent ****
I am writing is my capacity as Chairman of the UKUUG (UK's Unix & Open Systems User Group).
I was appalled to hear it rumoured that the BSI is intending to approve the fast tracking of the
Microsoft sponsored OOXML format (DIS29500) while there are still so many outstanding questions
about the draft standard. In this letter I make no comment about the long term suitability
of OOXML as an ISO standard, my main issue today is that fast tracking it is wrong.
An ISO standard should be well defined and capable of multiple independent implementations.
The whole point is to allow users of the standard to have products from different vendors
work together just as well as a product from a single vendor. If an ISO standard is
insufficiently precise to allow this then the reputation of ISO as a standards setting
body will suffer severely; with a consequential effect on International trade.
With this in mind, if BSI approves the fast tracking of OOXML it will do severe damage
users' confidence in standards in general and to the reputations of those organisations
who have approved this broken standard: BSI and ISO.
Technical people will regard standards less highly leading to a long term
erosion of use of standards. Do you personally want to be responsible for this ?
I thought that BSI meetings were open, but now find that they are secret. I find this
astounding, it makes me wonder what really happens in those meetings. Will you publish
unedited minutes and allow independent observers in the future ?
The last time that this was aired in public, I remember a BSI member commenting that the number
of comments about this was unprecedented. This shows that there is a great public interest
in this issue and that fast tracking would not meet public approval; people will wonder
who you represent and whose interests you serve.
On the standard itself: I am aware that some of the problems have been addressed, but that
there are large numbers of other ones that are still contentious. There are many parts
that are not properly defined. For these reasons OOXML is not fit for purpose as it stands.
It is possible that these problems may be fixed by the standard being fully discussed,
IE the fast tracking is not appropriate for OOXML.
I call on BSI to act in the interests of the UK public and say 'No to fast tracking of OOXML'.
If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
deeply flawed meetings with deeply flawed decisions about a proposed deeply flawed standard that exisits solely to further the commercials aims of one particular company.
in the meantime it risks destroying the credibilty of a mahor standard body (to further the commercial aims of one company).
and, of course, it reduces the possible impact of a simpler, superior standard (to further the commercial aims of one company).
the more I read about this the madder I become.
there is an old saying if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck. the simplest explanation in all cases points beck to some seriously disturbing manipulation by one particular company - and the brazen bare faced manor in which it is done is simply breathtaking. sure there is nothing *illegal* in padding up membership of committees to get the votes that you want - but by any measure it is underhanded and a dirty tactic.
I have already vowed to never use Vista (XP is the last MS OS for me). But this has pushed me over the edge. I have a few Windows programs that I really enjoy using that don't work in Wine, but I don't care any more. MS will not only never get another cent of my money but I am going to purge them completely from my life. Over the next few weeks I am going to remove XP from my computer (100% *nix now), never use the Office suite (Open Office and IMAP), and look for opportunities to inform others about their choice in OS and software.
I'm not alone either. As I've been tracking this I've been politely forwarding information to friends and family, several of which have started expressing interest in using *nix or other MS alternatives. My wife, who runs her own business, has now stated that as soon as professional Adobe products are ever available on *nix platforms then she will remove MS as well (she already chooses Thunderbird/Lightning) over Outlook. My children are more familiar with a *nix system than they are Windows system (my son loves the Tux suite of games as well as Gcompris).
My efforts are just a drop in the sea, but my immediate friends and family are now at least are aware of the choice they have. And I think that this realization of choice is what MS fears the most.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I believe that Microsoft has miscalculated. I am sure they developed their strategy a long time ago when they decided to embark upon this misadventure with OOXML. At that time, "standards" was a pretty obscure and esoteric topic that few people besides the experts ever considered. Of course they must have calculated that they may upset a few people in the regular course of things, but I am sure they never predicted the scrutiny by hundreds of thousands of non-experts the world over as they are receiving now. Who would have?
Corporations, even evil ones, are very conscious of public perception. Why else would they spend millions of dollars on public relations? Make no doubt about it - Microsoft must be very concerned right now about how this has turned out, in regards to the negative publicity and ill will it has garnered. It will be a hollow, Pyhrric victory for them if OOXML gains ISO status.
I have no doubt they may have even factored the cost of potential fines from the EU. What's another billion dollar fine when the stakes of the game for Microsoft are so much higher than that? However, I bet they never figured on the massive outrage that they have generated. That can not be so easily fixed by simply paying a fine and being done with it. On top of their misfortunes with Vista and a pending class action suite and the bad publicity that will bring, they must be very concerned. There is no telling where all this bad karma will lead them. Such uncertainties are very bad for business. Microsoft miscalculated when they embarked on the "Vista Ready" program, and they miscalculated when they embarked up the OOXML campaign. Their leadership is floundering. With threatening technological changes on the horizon like growing storm clouds, they are in navigating in troubled waters without a moral compass to guide them.