Slashdot Mirror
ISO Recommends Denying OOXML Appeals
An anonymous reader passes along word that ISO has responded to the four appeals filed against the approval of OOXML as a standard. To no one's surprise, ISO says that there was nothing wrong with the process. Groklaw's coverage is (as usual) the most comprehensive. Andy Updegrove summarizes ISO's position this way: "1. All judgments made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable Directives. 2. The fact that the BRM voted on all proposed resolutions in some fashion satisfies the requirements of the Directives. 3. The fact that a sufficient percentage of National Bodies (NBs) ultimately voted to approve DIS 29500 ratifies the process and any flaws in that process. 4. Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process."
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
How does it matter whether OOXML is an ISO standard or not. No real world implementation exists, so anyone who wants to actually use a standard is still going to have to use ODF.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They either need to replaced or it must be built up from scratch. If this does not happen, there can NEVER be any trust in them again.
Fuck ISO
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I can demand that all clown shoes must be measured in cubits and have it made the clown shoe standard. That doesn't mean people will use it.
Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process.
Hmm, what is the difference between an objection and an appeal again?
define:objection - expostulation: the act of expressing earnest opposition or protest.
define:appeal - challenge (a decision); "She appealed the verdict"
Ahh yes, completely different.
Even MSFT gave up on trying to use the thing as a standard (for now)... but at least ISO's actions show us just how worthless and suspect (and probably corrupt) an ISO standard can get nowadays.
Guess I should've seen it coming back in the 1990's, when companies were plastering "ISO (insert number) Certified!1!1!!11!" across every marketing material surface that would hold ink.
Ah well... back to the good ol' RFC's, methinks.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I think we need to teach these cocksuckers a lesson. Let's boycott ISO and all ISO standards. Hopefully, it will be as successful as our amazon boycott!!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The way I see it is that they have exactly two options:
1) Clean up their process and make resilient against amoral scum like Microsoft, that have a lot of power and absolutely no restraints on using it.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
Seems to me that ISO is bound to beceome irrelevant unless they chose 1). This would be detrimental to the whole world and a real pity. Can they just admit that their process has been successfully hacked and take a stand and poclaim that they will not tolerate it? Obviously not. Pathetic.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's a real shame their anti-MS hatred has to taint everything in the world. But at least the ISO is not putting up with it any longer.
Yeah, because Microsoft stuffed ISO with its own people. Maybe they should rename it MS-ISO. I'm sure they'd have no problem getting the name approval.
My blog
Did anyone expect them to say "It's a fair cop gov, you caught us red-handed"?
I think instead of having standards bodies, perhaps we should just say, defacto, that the open source application that manages an open document is in fact the reference implementation. It has all the knowledge in code, for public display and re-use, and that's way better than mere requirements. Like, I'm a total Windows bigot, but I do more C++ on Linux and I now expect that Visual C++ should actually perform the same way that GNU does, rather than vice versa, because I trust GNU more.
This is my sig.
So, an irrelevant and self serving international body decides to ignore the general feeling and collective wisdom/insight of the community and ratify an standard used by nobody (including its creator).
really, who cares?
Who are the losers here?
MS - because this has all come out in the wash, they are going ODF anyhow and its made them look daft for not even using their own standard. I mean, how could they now?
ISO - because this has generated enough mud to stick and tarnished their reputation maybe beyond compare.
The corruption is so obvious that the ISO's reputation has been harmed. This is a bigger win for M$ than the coo-coo standard they never intended to follow. It is as if RJR got the AMA to approve a cigarette through bribery and a truncated "fast track" process. OOXML is against everything the ISO stood for and that contradiction is the forest that should be seen through all the clear cut trees. Commercial standards are now obviously compromised.
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
ISO need not have a monopoly on games. Sure, it's going to take some work to replace it. So the question is, "is it worthwhile doing?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...when it has no standard implementation?
What does this say about ISO Standards when their decisions are rejected by the community at-large?
MSOffice will support MSOOXML*
* but not the ISO standard implementation of MSOOXML **
** written in VERY small print. On a disused paper. In the basement. Without a light (lost) or stairs (lost) behind a closed door saying "Beware of the leopard"
The problem is not whether the appeals hold any merit. The problem is the process handling the appeals (as well as any other ISO process) is flawed.
It's like asking a paralyzed man to piss and hit toilet.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
the ISO's website has a nice feedback form, I would encourage people in a restrained and intelligent way to point out what OOXML has done to the ISO's now ruined reputation.
ISO 9000/9001 certification (which is what you are talking about) is a somewhat vague standard that says, in simple terms, that any process or actions your company performs must have a written description of the process, instructions, checksheets, etc. It is intended to try to improve quality and consistency. It doesn't mean that in all cases (or even most) that quality and consistency are improved.
Its a fairly meaningless certfication, since the company can still be turning out crap. But at least with ISO9000 they should have a record of what was done to make the crap.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Well, at this point all I can say is fsck ISO. And I think that's the general feeling of many in the IT right now. That's going to have some consequences - like, ISO standards not being worth the paper they're written on, for example.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
There was a misstatement in point 1 - it should read:
1. All judgements made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable tables.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
This is where the anti-MS feelings come from, they do not play nice with the other children. It's like their mantra is 'Make money through evil'. This has nothing to do with FOSS and everything to do with standards, proper real standards, ones you can use and make something compliant.
i would say that microsoft spending millions corrupting an international standards body so they can keep the third world ignorant and subjugated is pretty high on the scale. we're talking about imperialism here.
It seems kind of odd to me that certain members of the ISO are fighting so hard to defend their questionable actions during the process. Could it be they are afraid of what may surface during an investigation of what really happened? Could it be they are afraid of what they might lose if it's overturned? Just curious...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
The fact there is corruption and fraud elsewhere do not make this one a tiny bit more tolerable.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
In practice though, it's really hard to do this - I used to know someone who spent a long time doing a real ISO reference C compiler. (Standards are mind numbing stuff - particularly the corner cases).
Andy
Reminded saying heard long time ago. [ Probably native speaker can give original saying for my memory is bad with such things. ]
When process is against you - argue facts
When facts against you - argue procedure.
Facts are against ISO. So they are pushing the procedure thing. After all procedure was so to say followed and voting on the so called standard so to say have happened. Or probably "had been happened" is more appropriate wording in the context??
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
document standards have an impact. up till now the first world has exported proprietary file formats to the third world, so making a modern infrastructure another method of subjugation. now people are questioning the wisdom of proprietary file formats for purely practical reasons. so microsoft bribes itself a document standard so the first world can continue exporting proprietary file formats to the third world.
the result? one more chain keeping the banana republics enslaved.
Before the first time I ever participated in a "standards body", I thought that the committees consisted of really smart technical people gathering together to figure out what was best for the industry at large. How naive!
Then came the rude awakening: The committees are almost entirely comprised of representatives (who often reflect minimal technical expertise in the domain of interest) of the major commercial players in the industry. Each of the reps does whatever he/she can to promote his/her constituent employer's stance on each and every detailed issue, without regard for ethics, and with no regard whatsoever to what is "best" for the industry at large. Buying votes is certainly considered within the pale, in these contexts.
Consequently, the only standards I can respect are the RFCs published by the IETF, for 2 major reasons:
1) Governments will have to use an ISO approved standard, to make sure their documents can be exchanged, and that their documents will be readable in the future.
2) Since msft has a monopoly on office products, the ISO standard of choice is a foregone conclusion.
3) Anybody who does business with the governments will also have to use the OOXML standard. So those who do business with the governments will also standardize on OOXML. Those who business, with those who do business with governments, will also have to standardize on OOXML - and so on.
4) ODF will never have the slightest chance to get a toe-hold.
5) Msft wins again - QED.